22-28 January 1917
- By Mark Sutcliffe
- •
- 29 Jan, 2017
- •
(Mark D. Steinberg, Voices of Revolution, 1917 (New Haven and London 2001)
22 January
Diary entry of Georges-Maurice Paléologue, French Ambassador to Russia
On [19 January] Germany decided to extend the strict application of the maritime blockade to the whole coast-line of Europe. The act is a ruthless cancellation of the solemn assurances which America obtained from the German Chancellor that naval warfare should be restricted after the Lusitania, Ancona and Sussex has been torpedoed. The reply of the Federal Government has been prompt. Yesterday, President Wilson asked the senate for authority to employ any means which may become necessary to protect American ships and citizens in the exercise of their peaceful activities ... The Russian public has favourably received this important piece of news, but the impression it conveys is but vague and superficial. For Russia knows nothing of America; she does not even suspect what a great drama has been taking place in the conscience of the American people during the last twenty months.
(Maurice Paléologue, An Ambassador's Memoirs 1914-1917, London 1973)
24 January
Interview with Moscow Art Theatre director Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko
Is society really interested in new movements in art at this present moment? Can it be interested at such a time? Does it have sufficient reserves of attention for it? I don't think so, nor do I think it's possible except for some very small groups of people who seem to have more time on their hands than those who in one way or another are preoccupied with what is going on ... Theatrical productions in general, yes they are absolutely essential. Without this 'release-valve' for the nerves, it would be even harder for people to retain their courage and forbearance. But innovations in art - I'm not so sure.
(Interview in Utro Rossii)
25 January
Letter from Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (Sandro) to Nicholas II, his brother-in-law
...events have shown that Your advisors continue to lead You and Russia towards certain ruin, and in such circumstances it would be a crime to remain silent before both God, You, and Russia. Discontent is growing rapidly and the further it goes, the greater the gap between You and Your People ... In conclusion I have to say that, however strange it may seem, the government is today the organ that is preparing revolution, the people do not want it, but the government is using all available means to create as many discontented people as possible, and is succeeding. we are witnessing the unheard of spectacle of a revolution from above, not below.
your devoted Sandro
(Sergei Mironenko, A Lifelong Passion, London 1996)
26 January
Times article headed 'The New Russia'
Under the stimulus of war the national growth of Russia has proceeded at an unprecedented pace. To those who had watched her remarkable development during the years which followed upon the war with Japan and the subsequent initiation of constitutional reforms, the progress which she made in moral and national welfare between 1905 and 1914 seemed to border on the miraculous; it has been far eclipsed by the record of events that have happened since then, and there is no reason to expect any decline in this maturing evolution. Rapid growth is ever a painful process, particularly so when it affects a huge and complex organism, and so we must not be astonished at the present crisis ... The conditions prevailing in Russia ... are clearly so dissimilar from those of any other country engaged in the present struggle that comparisons, for instance with England, are likely to confuse rather than to illustrate any attempt to make the situation comprehensible to the English reader ... The people themselves are very different in many ways; different in character, habits, and ideas, different in their outlook upon life, in their comprehension of the ordinary standards of duty or of subservience to law. In most respects these differences tend to disappear as the Russian people advance along the path of progress, while the fundamental, abiding characteristics of the nation - a passionate love of truth and an equal detestation of cant and shams - will save them from its pitfalls.
(The Times, From our own correspondent, Petrograd)
27 January
Diary entry of Nicholas II
Thaw overnight - the first since beginning of December. Was clear and very windy. Received Bark [finance minister] and Voinovsky-Krigier [communications minister]; met engineer-constructor of Murmansk railway, Goryachkovsky. Went for walk with daughters and worked on the foundations of the snow tower ... Read for a short time in the evening.
28 January
Diary entry of Lev Tikhomirov, revolutionary and later conservative thinker
Everybody is sounding off about treason, literally everybody. Maybe a lot of it is made up. For example they're saying about the Allied delegation that's here now that the central aim of their visit is to investigate the drowning of Lord Kitchener, claiming that it was Stürmer who gave the information to the Germans. The rumour is that only Stürmer knew Kitchener's exact route... But if Stürmer did know it, others must have too. His patrons must have known about it. Public discourse is turning from Stürmer to those at the very top. Nobody is being subjected to more accusations than the Empress. Literally everybody is against her. But this is also undermining trust in the Sovereign himself, though this lack of faith takes a different form - that he is surrounded by treachery and is incapable of seeing it ... In a word, the country is full of rumours that show the extent of the collapse in trust in the Sovereign's ability to govern, and some kind of real desire for a coup. A coup is seen as the only way to destroy the treachery. There's been nothing like it since the time of Louis XVI. Does the Sovereign know the situation he's in? What's he thinking of doing in such dangerous circumstances? Apparently he's been saying, 'The intelligentsia is against me, but the people and the army are behind me: I have nothing to fear.' But if this is genuinely his opinion, it is not entirely correct. Maybe the people and the army are generally behind him, but only conditionally, and not with any faith in his ability to rule or even break out of this web of 'treachery'. And such an atmosphere leads to the idea of extricating him from the 'treachery' by force and giving him other 'advisors'. This is enough to spark off a state coup. And it's not just coming from the 'revolutionaries', nor even the 'intelligentsia', but a huge mass of citizens. The situation has nothing in common with the time of Emperor Alexander II, for example, when the people were genuinely with the Tsar. Now those who are against the Tsar - i.e. who have lost their faith in him - number vast swathes of ordinary citizens, even those who were monarchists and on the right in 1905, who selflessly stood against the revolution. It goes without saying that the revolutionaries are using this to their best advantage .... While the Sovereign evidently has no idea of the horror of this situation.
(L.A. Tikhomirov, Diary 1915-1917, Moscow 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 January 2017
We none of us know what is round the corner but what comes through many of these contemporary accounts is how many people were predicting the overthrow of the monarchy in some form. While Nicholas himself was keeping a careful record of the weather conditions, meetings with ministers, and what he was reading to his children, others apparently sensed the approaching storm. Perhaps 1905 had to some extent occluded the Tsar's vision: in his mind he was still father of his people, who in wartime needed him more than ever. But war turned out to be the decisive factor in the revolution. The 'what ifs' are somehow particularly poignant with the events of 1917. What if the Empress's background had been something other than German; what if war hadn't contributed to a disastrous economic situation; what if Lenin had been prevented from returning to Russia. Such counterfactual teases are the subject of a new book edited by Tony Brenton, former UK ambassador to Russia, called Historically Inevitable? Turning Points of the Russian Revolution. Other publications marking the anniversary include Helen Rappaport's Caught in the Revolution - first-hand testimony of foreigners who found themselves in the eye of the storm - and a wonderful book published by Pushkin Press entitled 1917: Stories and Poems from the Russian Revolution, selected by Boris Dralyuk.
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.