26 March - 1 April 1917
- By Mark Sutcliffe
- •
- 04 Apr, 2017
- •
with an empty frame that had contained the portrait of Nicholas II
Georgy Rimsky-Korsakov, Russian army
officer
During these months I could only partly grasp the political
situation in the country. Of course we wanted the Provisional Government to
take hold and carry out the necessary reforms, and most importantly bring a
speedy end to the war. I came across a piece in a newspaper, Kopeika I think, that described how
Germany was conducting the war with the aim, in the event of victory, of
concluding a profitable trade agreement with Russia, and in this way the
Russian people was dying on behalf of the capitalists. It was stunningly
simple, and true. Nobody, of course, wanted Germany to win, but nor did anyone
want to continue fighting. Kerensky’s calls for further military offensive
seemed pitiful. He himself had no authority with us soldiers. It was all just a
complete muddle.
(From
the memoirs of G.A. Rimsky-Korsakov, Russia in
1917 in first-person testimony, Moscow 2015)
26 March
Sunday Times article
The question which interests everybody more than anything
else is Russia’s future attitude towards the war. There have been misgivings
about the possibility of a separate peace. But to suppose that Russia would now
seek to conclude a peace without the consent of the Allies is to misunderstand
the whole course of the Revolution. The Revolution bound people and Army
together in an indissoluble union, resulting in a firm resolve to win a
decisive victory. It is true that that a section of Socialists, now on the
Committee of Workmen Soldiers’ Delegates, express the wish for immediate peace.
But they have no majority on the committee, and still less influence in the
country.
(‘Russian War Aims: What the Socialists Demand’, from our own correspondent, Petrograd)
Letter to Minister of Justice Kerensky from worker and deserter A. Zemskov, Kuban region, 26 March 1917
Kind sir, Mr Minister,
Allow me, a poor worker living in Russia’s hinterlands, to express myself, if only in a letter, on the subject of past and present events in the current historical moment. In addressing you, an individual who professes proletarian worldviews and is a defender of the interests of the working classes, I must nonetheless ask you to forgive me, an insignificant worker, for being so bold as to address to you, a great political figure whose name is covered in glory, a letter in which I set forth only my own personal opinions and worldviews and, regrettably, for taking up a minute of your very valuable time, the minute you take to read my letter … Ever since the last Russian autocrat fell from his high throne, you have been hearing on all sides laudatory hymns to the new state order and freedom … Aren’t you singing the praises of new chains that are only going by the name of freedom? … You (I am addressing the Provisional Government) have the audacity to say that freedom has come. But isn’t your current power over the people a power that the bourgeoisie delivered to you, based on coercion? … In professing a lie to the world, you, gentlemen, the new rulers, think that the working masses are so intoxicated by your lie that everyone is accepting it as truth without exception. No, gentlemen, in this you are mistaken … The details of my person are these: I am a former Moscow worker of peasant origin from Vladimir Province, Suzdal Uezd, surname Zemskov. As a deserter I’ve been hiding in the Kuban steppes for more than two years … With deep apologies,
Worker A. Zemskov
(Mark D. Steinberg, Voices of Revolution, 1917, New Haven and London 2001)
27 March
At 3:20 p.m. on March 27, thirty-two Russian emigres left
the Zurich railway station for the German frontier. Among the passengers were
Lenin, Krupskaia, Grigorii Zinoviev with his wife and child, and Inessa Armand.
On its journey across Germany, their train received the highest priority.
Contrary to legend it was not sealed, but in conformance with the agreement, no
Germans entered the car.
(Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, London 1995)
Statement by the Provisional Government regarding the War
Leaving to the will of the people, in close union with our Allies,
the final decision of
all questions connected with the world war and its ending, the Provisional
Government considers it its right and duty to declare that the purpose of free
Russia is not domination over other peoples, nor spoliation of their national
possessions, nor the violent occupation of foreign territories, but the establishment
of a permanent peace on the basis of self-determination of all peoples … These
principles will be made the basis of the foreign policy of the Provisional
Government, which will firmly carry out the will of the people and will protect
the rights of our fatherland at the same time fully observing all obligations made
in regard to our allies.
Signed by Minister-Chairman, Prince G.E. Lvov
(Russian-American Relations March 1917-March 1920, New York
1920)
Diary entry of Georges-Maurice Paléologue, French Ambassador to Russia
The Soviet demands that the Government shall immediately
join with its allies in opening peace negotiations on the following basis: ‘No
annexations, no indemnities, and the free development of the nations.’ I
fortified Miliukov to the best of my ability by pointing out that the Soviet’s
demands amount to the defection of Russia, and if that came to pass it would be
an eternal disgrace to the Russian people … ‘I’m so entirely in sympathy with
your view,’ Miliukov protested, ‘that if the Soviet got its way I should resign
my office at once!’ A proclamation which the Provisional Government addresses
to the Russian people and has published this morning tries to evade the
difficulty be veiling its intention to continue the war in nebulous phrases.
When I pointed out the inconsistency and timorousness of these phrases to
Miliukov, he replied: ‘I think I achieved a great triumph in getting them
inserted in the proclamation. We are obliged to tread very warily in dealing
with the Soviet; we cannot yet rely on the garrison to defend us.’ Can it be
that the Soviet is the master of Petrograd!
(Maurice Paléologue, An Ambassador's Memoirs 1914-1917, London 1973)
28 March
Memoir by the Menshevik Nikolai Sukhanov
At this time Stalin appeared in the Ex[ecutive] Com[mittee]
for the Bolsheviks, in addition to Kamenev. This man was one of the central
figures of the Bolshevik Party and perhaps one of the few individuals who held
the fate of the revolution and of the State in their hands. Why this is so I
shall not undertake to say: ‘influence’ in these exalted and irresponsible
spheres, remote from the people and alien to publicity, is so capricious. But
at any rate Stalin’s role is bound to be perplexing. The Bolshevik Party, in
spite of the low level of its ‘officers’ corps’, had a whole series of most
massive figures and able leaders among its ‘generals’. Stalin, however, during
his modest activity in the Ex. Com. produced – and not only on me – the
impression of a grey blur, looming up now and then dimly and not leaving any
trace. There is really nothing more to be said about him.
(N.N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution 1917: a Personal Record, Oxford 1955)
30 March
Diary entry of Joshua Butler Wright, Counselor of the American Embassy, Petrograd
The news from the front seems reluctantly to improve; from
the socialist workers in Petrograd remains disquieting; and from the navy at
Kronstadt to cause worry generally. Our military attaché is watching the first;
we are preparing a sort of propaganda … to meet the second; and our naval
attaché took a quiet little trip of observation to Helsingfors to verify the
third. Many people … are refusing to be reassured and bombard the embassy for
news. The Germans certainly can’t get up the Neva until the ice goes out; they
can’t dig trenches in this weather; they
would not push a slender column on Petrograd alone; and the enormous British
drive in Flanders is gaining steadily.
(Witness to Revolution: The Russian Revolution Diary and Letters of J. Butler Wright, London 2002)
31 March
Diary entry of Alexander Benois, artist and critic
Akitsa just harps on about peace and is sent into raptures by the socialist papers which she believes like the Gospels ... Meanwhile the world, and in particular the Russian, tragedy is approaching its fatal moment of crisis. Decrees based on common sense and the most noble humanity, which were entirely pertinent when Russia was establishing its new order (how strange! It already feels that the revolution took place not a month ago, but five years ago), are now silenced in the face of the total mess that's been made ... Any question of patriotism is corrupted by the unlimited cruelty of the British, its systematic and cunning avarice, its stupidity; they're not only terrifying, they're outrageous. I remember how loathsome I thought that war poster in London was, showing Kitchener's face blown up and the words at the top: 'This is your hope!' He's now at the bottom of the ocean but it turns out that he and his accomplices have so managed to defile, enslave and plunder 'the land of freedoms' that it's now a more sinister, more enslaving place than Prussia itself!
(Alexander Benois,Diary 1916-1918, Moscow 2006)
Resolution of the workers of the Putilov metal and machine
factory, Petrograd, 31 March 1917
Considering the fact that the rumours being spread by the
bourgeois press to the effect that workers are striking and leaving the army
without shells are a foul lie and are being spread to weaken the revolution and
sow strife between the working class and the army, the workers of the Putilov
factory resolve:
1. To address a request through their representatives to the
Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies demanding that the Provisional
Government make statements in the press saying that these kinds of rumours are
a foul lie and take measures to put a stop to these rumours.
2. Because the bourgeois newspapers … are a mighty weapon in
the hands of the bourgeoisie, to boycott these bourgeois newspapers, while
trying in every possible way to support and disseminate our workers’ press.
3. To have our comrade workers from all the other plants,
factories and workshops of Petrograd join us in our resolution to support the
boycott.
(Mark D. Steinberg, Voices of Revolution, 1917, New
Haven and London 2001)
1 April
Diary entry of Louis de Robien, attaché at the French Embassy
The famous Allied socialist deputies arrived yesterday at
Finland Station. Representing France: Cachin, Lafont, and Moutet – two
professors of philosophy and a lawyer. Representing England: O’Grady and
Thorne, a cabinet-maker and a plumber … I decidedly prefer the English
socialists!
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917-1918, London 1969)
Diary entry of Georges-Maurice Paléologue, French Ambassador to Russia
…French socialism is thus represented by intellectuals with
a classical education, English socialism by manual workers, ‘matter-of-fact
men’. Theory on one side, practice on the other … When [the French socialists]
left me, they went to the Champ-de-Mars to lay a wreath on the grave of the
victims of the revolution, just as in the old days the envoys of the French
Republic used to go to the Fortress of SS. Peter and Paul to place a wreath on
the tomb of Alexander III. As Sainte-Beuve wrote: ‘Life is nothing but seeing
everything and the reverse of everything.’
(Maurice Paléologue, An Ambassador's Memoirs 1914-1917, London 1973)
Diary entry of Nicholas II
Forgot to mention that yesterday we said goodbye to 46 of
our servants who were finally released from the Alexander Palace to [go to]
their families in Petrograd. The weather was nice with a strong southern wind.
Walked until breakfast. During the day started to break the ice as usual by the
bridge over a stream; [with us] worked Tatiana, Valya and Nagorny. Took a nap
until dinner. Gave each other gifts of [Easter] eggs and photos. At 11 ½ went
to the beginning of the midnight service.
(Sergei Mironenko, A Lifelong Passion, London 1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 April 2017
Posting later every week. Terrible day yesterday for St Petersburg - a suicide bomber, or so it seems, on the metro, ten people dead, possibly more. The messages were immediate and from all over the world. Through the Likhachev alumni came an outpouring of horror and compassion for a city that is close to so many.
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.