19 - 25 November 1917
- By Mark Sutcliffe
- •
- 04 Dec, 2017
- •
19 November
In Bykhov the prisoners [generals and officers arrested after the Kornilov
uprising] were kept in better conditions than in Berdichev. The prison was
guarded by the Tekhinsky regiment which was loyal to Kornilov, and this
prevented any unsanctioned reprisals against the arrested generals. The cells
were not locked, the prisoners were allowed to socialize and receive and write
personal letters … on the morning of 17 November 1917 [chair of the
investigative committee] von Raupakh … received a note from Kornilov in
which he said that if action was not taken the Bykhov prisoners could
potentially become victims of reprisals by soldiers fleeing the front …
Von Raupakh took a piece of Commission headed paper and printed an invented
order for their release … On the evening of 19 November 1917 all the
generals and officers at Bykhov prison left Bykhov. [The following day General
Dukhonin was murdered by revolutionary sailors at Mogilev station; Generals
Denikin, Markov, Lukomsky and Romanovsky made their way to the Don region
where, with Kornilov and others, they helped to form the Volunteer Army — the
major White force of the civil war.]
Elena Shirokova, ptiburdukov.ru/История/были _освобождены_быховские_узники
20 November
At the station, despite the efforts of Krylenko, a crowd of red army men
hoisted General Dukhonin on their bayonets. His mutilated body was crucified in
the freight-car, pinned up with nails. A fag-end was stuffed in the corpse’s
mouth, and the whole crowd went to look at the general’s desecrated body,
spitting in his face and hurling abuse at him. It was in this state that his
wife, who had heard of her husband’s murder, found him at the station.
(M. Belevskaya, Headquarters of the Supreme Command in Mogilev, 1915–18:
Personal Reminiscences, Vilno 1932)
In this way the Bolsheviks seized
control of Stavka, and the command of the Russian army was transferred from
General Dukhonin to Ensign Krylenko. What was left of it, anyway, for the
Russian Imperial Army was melting away as soldiers simply packed up and left.
What muzhik wanted to be the last to man his post while the great parcelling
out of the land began back home? This was especially true for minority peoples,
such as Ukrainians, who saw the opportunity of attaining independence. By the
end of November 1917, Ukrainian soldiers had virtually disappeared from the
eastern front. It would not be long, a German spy reported from Kiev, before
Ukraine would move ‘to separate itself from Russia’. On the northern front,
where there were dreams of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian independence, the
situation was no better.
(Sean McMeekin, The Russian Revolution: A New History, New York 1917)
21 November
‘The New Siberian State’
After the declaration of independence by the Caucasus comes the announcement
of the establishment of a Tartar Republic in the Crimea. This is now followed
by the secession of Siberia from European Russia. It is difficult to say where
the process of disintegration will end. It appears to cause little concern to
the politicians in power, who are wholly absorbed by their programme of peace,
followed by a war of classes and social disruption.
(‘From our special correspondent’, The Times)
Nothing is more dangerous for peace
and for the future of Germany at this moment than to suppose that Russia is
finished and can be treated by the victorious Central Powers as a vanquished
foe. It would be madness to mistake the momentary nervous derangement of a vast
country for complete exhaustion … The Bolshevik Government might fall
within a few weeks and give place to another which would tear up the agreements
of its predecessor.
(Report in the German newspaper Mannheimer Volksstimme)
Diary entry of Joshua Butler Wright,
Counselor of the American Embassy, Petrograd
These people are not going to remain in power long — but they are in power
now. It’s like Mexico.
(Witness to Revolution: The Russian Revolution Diary and Letters of J. Butler
Wright, London 2002)
22 November
Diary entry of Louis de Robien, attaché at the French Embassy
The pretext which served to enrage the soldiers [who killed Dukhonin] seems
to have been the disappointment of the Bolsheviks at not finding Kornilov
there. He had been imprisoned at Stavka after his famous attempted coup and had
escaped, with four hundred Cossacks from the Savage Division who had been
ordered to guard him, on the evening before the actual day when the Soviets
arrived at Headquarters. The soldiers claim that this escape took place with
the connivance of General Dukhonin, and they murdered him through hatred of
Kornilov, who to them symbolized the counter-revolution and the continuation of
the war. And during all this time, the theatres of Petrograd are full and I
found it impossible to get a seat for the ballet tonight, when they are doing Eros , La
Nuit d’Egypte , and Islamet .
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917–1918, London 1969)
'Bolshevist
Visions’
The Petrograd Agency publishes the following: ‘The Workers’ Government has
instituted a Central Economic Council to deal with the economic situation in
Russia … All works and factories will elect their own controlling
bodies … As the Workers’ Council have in their hands the Central State
Bank, and hope in due course to place the private banks successively under the
control of the state, the Government of workers at the top and the workers’
organisations lower down will not only find it possible to understand the
industrial situation and the rate of profit, but they will also be able to
reduce such profit progressively. The Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, in
introducing democracy into the administration of the State, is at the same time
making an end of the autocracy of the capitalist in the factory.
(Report in The Times)
23 November
To the Editor of The Times
Sir, — In your leading article on the treachery of the Bolsheviks appearing
today, which will be fully appreciated by all Russian Loyalists for its
sympathy towards the Russian people as a whole, you show fine appreciation of
one of the most serious causes of the development which culminated in the
present Russian crisis, especially in the last paragraph of your article, in
which you say: ‘We have let the Germans flood Russia with their agents and their
propaganda, and have made no organized attempt to counteract the evil work of
the enemy.’ May I carry your idea a few lines further, and say that the need
for British propaganda in Russia has never been greater than it is today,
for … it is not too late to prevent Russia from falling under an economic
domination of Germany…
Yours truly, Zinovy N. Preev, London Correspondent of the Utro Rossii,
Moscow, 359, Strand, WC2
(Letter to The Times)
Diary entry of Louis de Robien,
attaché at the French Embassy
The territories of the Empire are being frittered away … Finland has
proclaimed its independence and has asked the foreign governments to recognise
it … I cannot see why we should deny this people the right to govern
themselves … It is up to us to win the Finns over to our cause by
hastening to give them the recognition which they are asking for before Germany
does.
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917–1918, London 1969)
24 November
‘Trotsky’s idea of peace’
The keynote of Trotsky’s programme is the belief that the whole European
proletariat will insist within the next few weeks upon the conclusion of a
general peace. His statements, so emphatically repeated, that the ‘Government’
repudiates the idea of a separate peace and intends to negotiate a general
peace in concert with the Allies, indicate an illusion of the near approach of
a sudden and simultaneous outburst of pacifism before which all Thrones,
Principalities, and Powers must yield … What will happen if the expected revolutionary
cataclysm fails to take place Trotsky refrained from stating; but the
Ministerial Pravda supplies an answer: ‘We will make a general peace if
possible; if not, a separate peace.’
(‘From our special correspondent’, The Times)
Diary entry of Louis de Robien,
attaché at the French Embassy
Whoever they may be, it is the men who end the war who will be masters of
Russia for a long time…
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917–1918, London 1969)
25 November 2017
We look back on the Kornilovites and the generals who headed south to form the
nucleus of the Volunteer, later White, Army, and see them as men ‘out of time’,
their photographs fading towards an early grave or impoverished exile. They
somehow don’t seem ‘real’ in the way that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and others
continue to imprint themselves on our imagination. Is this simply because they
lost, and the losing side tends to remain in the shadows? Or because they
somehow represent the ‘old guard’, whether they were actually monarchist or
not — men of the nineteenth, rather than twentieth century? As the revolution
centenary recedes and that of the Civil War comes closer, maybe some old wounds
will be reopened. General Denikin, who escaped with Kornilov to the Don region
and succeeded him to the command of the White forces after Kornilov’s death in
April 1918, remained a divisive figure well into exile in France and the United
States. In 2005, on Putin’s instruction, Denikin’s body was repatriated and
buried in Moscow’s Donskoi monastery — an act seen at the time as partly an
attempt to honour the Whites in order to avoid confronting the real legacy of
the Civil War. A feature writer in the Spectator magazine wrote at the time:
‘by celebrating Denikin and [anti-communist philosopher Ivan] Il’in, their
anti-communism, nationalism and Orthodoxy, the Russian state is making a
statement about the country’s future which, for those of us who remember the
Soviet years, is a statement we can only welcome.’ I wonder if he would write
the same today.
as per the Gregorian calendar. 5 November 2017
8 October
Letter from Lenin to the Bolshevik Comrades attending the Regional Congress of
the Soviets of the Northern Region
Comrades, Our revolution is passing through a highly critical period …
A gigantic task is being imposed upon the responsible leaders of our Party,
failure to perform which will involve the danger of a total collapse of the
internationalist proletarian movement. The situation is such that verily,
procrastination is like unto death … In the vicinity of Petrograd and in
Petrograd itself — that is where the insurrection can, and must, be decided on
and effected … The fleet, Kronstadt, Viborg, Reval, can and must advance
on Petrograd; they must smash the Kornilov regiments, rouse both the capitals,
start a mass agitation for a government which will immediately give the land to
the peasants and immediately make proposals for peace, and must overthrow
Kerensky’s government and establish such a government. Verily, procrastination
is like unto death.
(V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin, The Russian Revolution: Writings and Speeches
from the February Revolution to the October Revolution, 1917, London 1938)
9 October
Report in The Times
The Maximalist [Bolshevik], M. Trotsky, President of the Petrograd Soviet,
made a violent attack on the Government, describing it as irresponsible and
assailing its bourgeois elements, ‘who,’ he continued, ‘by their attitude are
causing insurrection among the peasants, increasing disorganisation and trying
to render the Constituent Assembly abortive.’ ‘The Maximalists,’ he declared,
‘cannot work with the Government or with the Preliminary Parliament, which I am
leaving in order to say to the workmen, soldiers, and peasants that Petrograd,
the Revolution, and the people are in danger.’ The Maximalists then left the
Chamber, shouting, ‘Long live a democratic and honourable peace! Long live the
Constituent Assembly!’
(‘Opening of Preliminary Parliament’, The Times)
10 October
As Sukhanov left his home for the Soviet on the morning of the 10th, his
wife Galina Flakserman eyed nasty skies and made him promise not to try to
return that night, but to stay at his office … Unlike her diarist husband,
who was previously an independent and had recently joined the Menshevik left,
Galina Flakserman was a long-time Bolshevik activist, on the staff of Izvestia.
Unbeknownst to him, she had quietly informed her comrades that comings and
goings at her roomy, many-entranced apartment would be unlikely to draw
attention. Thus, with her husband out of the way, the Bolshevik CC came
visiting. At least twelve of the twenty-one-committee were there … There
entered a clean-shaven, bespectacled, grey-haired man, ‘every bit like a
Lutheran minister’, Alexandra Kollontai remembered. The CC stared at the
newcomer. Absent-mindedly, he doffed his wig like a hat, to reveal a familiar
bald pate. Lenin had arrived.
(China Miéville, October: The Story of the Russian Revolution, London 2017)
Memoir by the Menshevik Nikolai
Sukhanov
Oh, the novel jokes of the merry muse of History! This supreme and decisive
session took place in my own home … without my knowledge … For such a
cardinal session not only did people come from Moscow, but the Lord of Hosts
himself, with his henchman, crept out of the underground. Lenin appeared in a
wig, but without his beard. Zinoviev appeared with a beard, but without his
shock of hair. The meeting went on for about ten hours, until about 3 o’clock
in the morning … However, I don’t actually know much about the exact
course of this meeting, or even about its outcome. It’s clear that the question
of an uprising was put … It was decided to begin the uprising as quickly
as possible, depending on circumstances but not on the Congress.
(N.N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution 1917: a Personal Record, Oxford 1955)
11 October
British Consul Arthur Woodhouse in a letter home
Things are coming to a pretty pass here. I confess I should like to be out
of it, but this is not the time to show the white feather. I could not ask for
leave now, no matter how imminent the danger. There are over 1,000 Britishers
here still, and I and my staff may be of use and assistance to them in an
emergency.
(Helen Rappaport, Caught in the Revolution: Petrograd 1917, London 2017)
Memoir of Fedor Raskolnikov, naval
cadet at Kronstadt
The proximity of a proletarian rising in Russia, as prologue to the world
socialist revolution, became the subject of all our discussions in
prison … Even behind bars, in a stuffy, stagnant cell, we felt instinctively
that the superficial calm that outwardly seemed to prevail presaged an
approaching storm … At last, on October 11, my turn [for release]
came … Stepping out of the prison on to the Vyborg-Side embankment and
breathing in deeply the cool evening breeze that blew from the river, I felt
that joyous sense of freedom which is known only to those who have learnt to
value it while behind bards. I took a tram at the Finland Station and quickly
reached Smolny … In the mood of the delegates to the Congress of Soviets
of the Northern Region which was taking place at that time .. an unusual
elation, an extreme animation was noticeable … They told me straightaway
that the CC had decided on armed insurrection. But there was a group of
comrades, headed by Zinoviev and Kamenev, who did not agree with this decision
and regarded a rising a premature and doomed to defeat.
(F.F. Raskolnikov, Kronstadt and Petrograd in 1917, New York 1982, first
published 1925)
12 October
Sir George Buchanan, British Ambassador to Russia
On [Kerensky] expressing the fear that there was a strong anti-Russian
feeling both in England and France, I said that though the British public was
ready to make allowances for her difficulties, it was but natural that they
should, after the fall of Riga, have abandoned all hope of her continuing to
take an active part in the war … Bolshevism was at the root of all the
evils from which Russia was suffering, and if he would but eradicate it he
would go down to history, not only as the leading figure of the revolution, but
as the saviour of his country. Kerensky admitted the truth of what I had said,
but contended that he could not do this unless the Bolsheviks themselves
provoked the intervention of the Government by an armed uprising.
(Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, London 1923)
13 October
Diary entry of Louis de Robien, attaché at the French Embassy
Kerensky is becoming more and more unpopular, in spite of certain grotesque
demonstrations such as this one: the inhabitants of a district in Central
Russia have asked him to take over the supreme religious power, and want to
make him into a kind of Pope as well as a dictator, whereas even the Tsar was
really neither one nor the other. Nobody takes him seriously, except in the
Embassy. A rather amusing sonnet about him has appeared, dedicated to the beds
in the Winter Palace, and complaining that they are reserved for hysteria
cases … for Alexander Feodorovich (Kerensky’s first names) and then
Alexandra Feodorovna (the Empress).
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917–1918, London 1969)
14 October 2017
The BBC2 semi-dramatisation of how the Bolsheviks took power, shown this week,
was a curious thing. Talking heads in the form of Figes, Mieville, Rappaport,
Sebag-Montefiore, Tariq Ali, Martin Amis and others were interspersed with
moody reconstructions of late-night meetings, and dramatic moments such as
Lenin’s unbearded return to the Bolshevik CC (cf Sukhanov above). The programme
felt rather staged and unconvincing, with a lot of agonised expressions and
fist-clenching by Lenin, but the reviewers liked it. Odd, though, that
Eisenstein’s storming of the Winter Palace is rolled out every time, with a
brief disclaimer that it’s a work of fiction and yet somehow presented as
historical footage. There’s a sense of directorial sleight of hand, as if the
rather prosaic taking of the palace desperately needs a re-write. In some
supra-historical way, Eisenstein’s version has become the accepted version.
John Reed’s Ten Days that Shook the World
, currently being
serialised on Radio 4, is also presented with tremendous vigour, and properly
so as the book is nothing if not dramatic. Historical truth, though, is often
as elusive in a book that was originally published — in 1919 — with an
introduction by Lenin. ‘Reed was not’, writes one reviewer, ‘an ideal observer.
He knew little Russian, his grasp of events was sometimes shaky, and his facts
were often suspect.’ Still, that puts him in good company, and Reed is
undoubtedly a good read.
