The history of front-line journalism in Russia during the First World War has only recently begun to attract the attention of researchers. Until now, the routes of war correspondents, their relationship with the Stavka, the front commanders, and censorship have been little studied. The work of American journalist Stanley Washburn is of particular interest. By 1914, he was already an experienced and established journalist who had visited various parts of the world. The fact that Washburn had been hired by “The Times” and sent on a difficult tour of duty on the Eastern front spoke volumes. His journalistic talent was combined with knowledge of the Russian army, gained from the time of the Russo-Japanese war. Foreign Minister S.D. Sazonov advocated his admission to the front in order to create a positive image of Russia and the Russian army in the United States. Although the Stavka initially resisted admitting journalists, Sazonov’s arguments, coupled with the defeats in East Prussia, forced to soften its position. At the front, Washburn stood out from other correspondents for his discipline and enthusiasm. Not being able to visit the front line constantly, Washburn focused on describing the everyday life of the front, the human “experience” of war. His articles were distinguished by their correctness and variety of subjects, and four books about the Russian front were published on this basis in 1914- 1916. Washburn’s popularity in the West affected his position in Russia: he was given maximum freedom of movement along the front, was willingly given interview by dignitaries and front commanders, and was twice granted an audience by Nicholas II. Washburn often expressed his ideas regarding developing military propaganda at the front and improving the image of the allies in Russian society. The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 and the radical breakdown of the social system in Russia prompted Washburn to change dramatically the field of his interests, leave the journalistic profession and leave Russia forever.

The sharpened attention of Russian society to the World War that broke out in 1914 prompted teachers, scholars and public figures to organize lectures and to explain the causes and nature of the war, its course and consequences. Educational and public organisations, self-government bodies, primarily the Moscow Society of People’s Universities, district and city authorities, were particularly active. When the war began, the procedure of coordinating lectures did not radically change, since the Moscow province was not subject to full military censorship. Nevertheless, the provincial and city governors had the authority to prohibit any lecture, and the wartime circumstances provided a good excuse for it. In the second half of 1914, all lectures of Moscow Society of People’s Universities about the war were banned without explanation. From 1915 onwards, the government’s approach became more flexible: against the background of the protracted war, pro-war propaganda had to be intensified, and lectures could be useful in this regard. In addition, during the first year of the war many lecturers had managed to “prove themselves” by staying within the boundaries of a stipulated program and not touching upon issues of domestic politics. Finally, lectures were oft en permitted, because they were part of charity events. However, the practice of bans and suspicion of the authorities towards civic organisations and public figures continued amidst the loosening of certain restraints. When deciding on public lectures on military subjects, the Moscow authorities took into account the weighty opinion of the military censorship. The approval process could be protracted and end with a controversial decision. Quite often a lecture that was allowed in one place was banned in another. On the whole, the number of lectures and public readings about the war did not match the demands of the population, and the empty information space was filled with negative rumours, which became one of the most important factors in the 1917 revolution.

The article explores the censorship of cinema in Russia during the First World War and the 1917 Revolution. While the history of cinema in Russia has been comprehensively addressed in scientific literature, the structure and powers of cinematographic censorship during the period 1914–1918 remain to be fully elucidated. It is evident that these alterations were of considerable significance when compared to the pre-war period. The nation was divided into territories subject to “full” and “partial” military censorship, and the command of the front-line provinces was granted, among other things, the authority to control film distribution, a power previously held by the civil administration. In the rear provinces, the prevailing order remained largely unaltered. Petrograd, however, was distinguished by its notable deviation from this norm. This was attributable to the establishment of a substantial and intricate censorship apparatus within the city during the war years. The Cinematographic Department became one of its numerous subdivisions in the autumn of 1914. Its employees were responsible for the issuance and revocation of distribution permits, as well as the screening of films (including those with non-military content) prior to their release. Concurrently, the Ministry of the Imperial Court, the police, the inspection of printers, and other entities persisted in their involvement in film censorship. A notable role was played by the Skobelev Committee, which during the war claimed not only to produce war films, but also to censor them. However, as in other forms of censorship, the departmental principle was upheld in the context of cinema. Consequently, the Ministry of the Imperial Court retained the censorship of films involving members of the imperial family, while military censorship in Petrograd operated autonomously and local authorities exercised control in the theatre of war and in the rear. This fragmentation of film censorship was a characteristic feature of the pre-war years and gave rise to a degree of dissatisfaction among representatives of the film industry. The Provisional Government refrained from abolishing military censorship, and film censorship remained in place.