10-16 September 1917

A half-length portrait of a young female Russian soldier serving with the Russian Women's 'Battalion of Death', 1917. The Battalion was formed by the Provisional Government in Petrograd after the February Revolution. The soldier is carrying a shortened Mosin-Nagant rifle, with bayonet fixed. Her head has been completely shaved (© IWM (Q 106251)
A large section of the propertied classes preferred the
Germans to the Revolution – even to the Provisional Government – and didn’t
hesitate to say so. In the Russian household where I lived, the subject of
conversation at the dinner-table was almost invariably the coming of the
Germans, bringing ‘law and order’ … One evening I spent at the house of a
Moscow merchant; during tea we asked the eleven people at the table whether
they preferred ‘Wilhelm or the Bolsheviki’. The vote was ten to one for
Wilhelm.
(John Reed, Ten Days that Shook the World
, New York 1919)
11 September
Diary entry of Joshua Butler Wright, Counselor of the American Embassy, Petrograd
Of the German offensive against this capital I have at the
moment no fear. Of the results of the ineptitude of the Provisional Government,
the possible outbreak of disorder, the probable riots that might then ensue, I
have some fear – or if not fear at least I feel that we should be prepared for
such eventualities.
( Witness to Revolution: The Russian Revolution Diary and Letters of J. Butler Wright
, London 2002)
Diary entry of Louis de Robien, attaché at the French Embassy
At dinner last night with Prince Gorchakov everybody was
very pessimistic. M. Narichkin, who came in during the evening, said that peace
must be made at all costs by giving the Germans everything they want. The whole
of Russia basically thinks the same as he does: but there are still people who
dare not say so.
(Louis de Robien, The Diary of a Diplomat in Russia 1917-1918
, London 1969)
12 September
Letter from Lenin to the Central Committee and and the Petrograd and Moscow Committees of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party
Why must the Bolsheviks assume power now? Because the
impending surrender of Petrograd will render our chances a hundred times less
favourable. And while the army is headed by Kerensky and Co. it is not in our
power to prevent the surrender of Petrograd … A separate peace between the
British and German imperialists must be prevented, and can be prevented, but
only by quick action … It would be naïve to wait for a ‘formal’ majority for
the Bolsheviks; no revolution ever waits for that. Kerensky and Co. are not
waiting either; they are preparing to surrender Petrograd … Power must be
assumed in Moscow and Petrograd at once (it does not matter which begins; even
Moscow may begin); we shall win absolutely and unquestionably.
V.I. Lenin, ‘The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power’, in The
Russian Revolution: Writings and Speeches from the February Revolution to the
October Revolution
, London 1938)
As for Kamenev’s and Zinoviev’s suggestion that the party
await a popular mandate from the Second Congress of Soviets, [Lenin] dismissed
it as ‘naïve’: ‘no revolution waits for that’. The Central Committee was far
from convinced: according to Trotsky, none of its members favoured an immediate
insurrection.
(Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution
, London 1995)
13 September
Diary entry of an anonymous Englishman
Yesterday to Tsarskoye Selo to wish the Grand Duke Boris
‘Good-bye and Good Luck.’ He was very sad, and said, ‘You are my last link with
civilisation.’ On my return, went to the Embassy to thank His Excellency and
Lady Georgina for their infinite kindness to me during my sojourn in Russia.
This morning left Petrograd at 7.30 for England.
(The Russian Diary of an Englishman, Petrograd 1915-1917
, New York 1919)
14 September
Interview given by Kerensky to Le Figaro
, reported in the Times
I maintain hope and confidence that the country will revive.
The time has come when we are going to reclimb the slope, and we shall get to
the top … we have attracted to our front rather more than half the total forces
of the Central Empires. We had to bear a tremendous effort on the part of the
enemy, but we have pulled ourselves together, and we shall do everything to
face the formidable necessities of the situation in order to attain the success
of our Armies ... The enemy has made skilful use of the circumstances in order
to throw suspicion on our faithfulness and loyalty as an ally. Only the German Press
could have spoken of a separate peace. Russia will never make a separate peace.
No man would ever consent to put his signature to such a treaty. Such an idea
must be excluded alike from the hopes of our enemies and the fears of our
Allies.
(‘Russia will never make a separate peace’, The Times
)
15 September
Report in the Times
The military section of the Soviet has voted a motion
demanding the dissolution of the so-called ‘shock’ battalions for the following
reasons:- (1) From the point of view of principle it is inadmissible that there
should be in the Army groups of privileged solders who arrogate to themselves
the right to die for the liberty of the country, when the right belongs to all
soldiers. (2) The ‘shock’ battalions place the Russian Army in the position of
an Army which refuses to defend liberty. (3) The ‘shock’ battalions diminish
the capacity of the Army by creating, on the one side, a category of heroes,
and, on the other, a mass of conscienceless soldiers.
(‘Soviet’s Objections to “Shock” Battalions’, The Times
)
16 September
A Prekaz [Order]
has been circulated; it directs that, in the event of withdrawal from Roumanian
territory, Russian soldiers are strictly forbidden to ill-treat the peasantry,
or to steal from them. Another Prekaz,
this time from the Roumanian High Command, forbids all sale of foodstuffs to
the Russians. I must admit that my sympathies lie with the Roumanians; the
Russians are really bad allies, they have lived so long in Galicia, where they
considered everything theirs by right … The newspapers hint that Kerensky may
resign, as so many people – including some of his own supporters – are
advocating a military dictatorship.
(Florence Farmborough, Nurse at the Russian Front: A Diary 1914-18
, London 1974)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 September 2017
For most of the year the Russian press has been fairly
underwhelmed, it appears, by the centenary of the Revolution. But a new film, Matilda
, about Nicholas II’s
relationship with the ballerina Mathilde Kschessinska, has unleashed a media
storm this week. A young Duma member, Natalya Poklonskaya, is leading the attack, saying
that anyone who watches this ‘blasphemy’ is complicit in its offence against
the Orthodox faith (Nicholas having been canonised in 2000). Even Hermitage director Mikhail Piotrovsky
has weighed in, though since the film isn’t on general release until October,
it seems unlikely that many have seen it. It’s interesting that a few seamy
scenes of the last Emperor and his mistress are portrayed as an attack on the
church and somehow, by association, the government. In 1917, postcards
depicting the deposed Emperor engaged in all kinds of unmentionable acts were
part of governmental strategy to vilify his regime. Hard to get one’s head round, but sometimes
it seems that contemporary Russia is far more in thrall to tsarist nostalgia than
the democratic ideals that were still fighting for life exactly a century ago.
