File No. 861.00/395
The Consul at Petrograd ( Winship) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 20.]
Sir: I have the honor to report further, referring to despatch No. 274, dated March 20, 1917,1 that on May 9, 1917, the Temporary Government felt called upon to publish in all the papers a declaration setting forth the difficulties contingent upon taking over the management of the country—their original program, the reforms already adopted and put into force, and their plan for assembling the Constitutional Convention (already reported in detail).
To this point the declaration is strong and cannot but inspire admiration and confidence in the Temporary Government, which is [Page 54] loyal, patriotic and capable. The last paragraphs of the declaration touching on the foreign policy and the present dangers are considered so significant that they are given here in detail:
As basis of its foreign policy the Temporary Government has undertaken the surrender of attacks on the freedom of other nations and of forcibly seizing their territories, and to fight in close union with radical democracies for attaining a lasting peace, based on the self-determination of nations. Regarding what has been already accomplished the Temporary Government cannot conceal from the people those difficulties and impediments which it meets in its work. It considers it advisable to mention that lately those difficulties have increased and call forth disturbing apprehension for the future.
Called to life by a great national movement the Temporary Government owns itself to be the executor and defender of the people’s will. As the foundation of a self-governing state it does not lay violence and constraint, but stands for voluntary submission of the people to the power created by them. It seeks support not in the physical but in the moral force. From the time that the Temporary Government assumed power not once has it shrunk from these principles. No blood has been shed through its fault, and it has not created a forcible barrier against the course of public thought. With regret and great danger for freedom, the hope that the growing of new social ties would unite the country is overshadowed by the process of disintegration brought about by the wreck of the old state organization. With these conditions, dismissal of the former forcible manner of administration and external artificial measures, used to uphold the prestige of the power, the difficulties of the Temporary Government threaten to be insurmountable. The elementary tendency to realize the wishes and solicitations of each separate group and class of the population by way of seizure and declaration, threatens to ruin the interior social welding and creates a favorable ground for forcible acts, sowing wrath and enmity toward the new organization between the sufferers on one side, and for development of private aspirations and interests on the other, to the detriment of common good and for the avoiding the fulfilment of the civil duties.
The Temporary Government considers it as a duty to declare definitely and frankly, that such a position of affairs makes the management of the state very difficult and in its consequent development threatens to lead the country to disintegration and consequently to the defeat on the front. Russia has before her the terrible phantom of civil war and anarchy, and the subsequent [loss?] of freedom. There is a gloomy and mournful path, well known to history and nations, a path leading from freedom through civil war and anarchy to reaction and thence the return to despotism. This path must not be the path of the Russian people. In the name of maintaining and strengthening the freedom of the country acquired with blood and sacrifice of our best sons, the Temporary Government summons everyone to strengthen the power which realizes the defense necessary for freedom. Let all to whom the freedom of Russia is dear, support the Government by obedience and cooperation, personal participation in common work and sacrifice, and by summoning others to do likewise. The Government on its side will renew, with [Page 55] particular persistency, the efforts directed towards the increase of its numbers by summoning to responsible state work representatives of those active creative forces of the country, which up to now have taken no direct or immediate part in the management of the state.
Citizens of Russia! The destiny of the country is in your hands. Without you the Government is powerless. With you it will freely and resolutely lead the country towards its great future. Remember, that it is impossible to retain freedom without power, and that under the new régime the power is created and kept by yourselves, by internal discipline and by voluntary obedience. Joining the power created by you and guaranteeing to it the realization of its full rights, you will give it the necessary force and strength to overcome all difficulties and dangers standing in the path of the country. In this way only can the freedom, of Russia be carried on unchallenged and intact until the great day when the people themselves, represented in the Constitutional Convention elected by them, will sit at the helm of the state.
It is to be seriously noted that the socialists, who control all the workmen, at least of Petrograd, and through their absolute dominance in the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, also control the troops in this city, have so far paid practically no attention to the United States, and have passed over her entrance into the war in complete silence, and do not even mention her in their speeches and editorials. The ovations and demonstrations have all been made by the people of the middle classes. Neither the message of Mr. Samuel Gompers1 nor the proclamation of the American socialists, headed and signed by Charles Edward Russell, William Walling and Ernest Poole, were printed or commented upon in any of the dozen large and small socialist newspapers in Petrograd. The effect of these two messages on the socialist classes here has been so slight that the liberal newspapers, with the exception of the conservative Novoe Vremya, have not commented on the two messages. …2
On May 10 a solemn session of the members of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Dumas was held. This day, the 27th of April, old style, was the eleventh anniversary of the first meeting of the First Duma in 1906. The meeting was a celebration of this anniversary and was not a legal session.
The President of the Fourth Duma, Mr. M. V. Rodzyanko, opened the meeting, which was attended by enormous crowds of the public, many members of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, including the Executive Committee, many of the soldiers and officers from the Convention of Delegates from the Front, now sitting here. Mr. Rodzyanko gave a short historical sketch of the activities of the four Dumas. In touching upon the last days of the Fourth Duma, immediately preceding the revolution, he mentioned the attitude of [Page 56] united opposition to the old régime assumed by nearly all parties of the Duma, stating that this opposition was based on the conviction that the old regimé could not carry the war to a successful conclusion. From this he went on to speak of the problems now facing Russia, declaring that no classes of Russian society had, at the beginning of the war, desired the conflict. He continued that neither an inglorious peace, one not measuring up to the honor and dignity of Russia, nor a separate peace, was acceptable. Such a peace, he declared, would be nothing more than a prolonged armistice. The part of his speech relating more directly to Germany is worth translation in full, as it gives a picture and illuminates an economic and sociological point which has so far not been publicly advanced in Petrograd and which was probably mentioned to combat the idea universally prevalent, or at least universally urged by Petrograd socialists; namely, the idea that it is the German government (ruling classes, bourgeoisie, Emperor) who are responsible for Germany’s share in the war, and not the German people. Mr. Rodzyanko said:
Careful studies of the national economic interests lie at the foundation of all present-day national problems. If the objects which Germany is seeking to obtain in this war be carefully studied from this point of view it becomes at once clear, no matter how strange it may seem at first sight, that in Germany the interests of the laboring class and the capitalists and other social elements all agree in the necessity for a decisive victory. Germany can not limit the wide development of her industry. Germany lived by this industry and it was the source of her riches. If this industry were seriously injured, Germany’s economic leadership would be undermined and injury would result to the interests of the German working class, of the capitalists, and of the bourgeoisie which controls German commercial and industrial life. The secret cause of the support given by the German working class to the war is contained in this solidarity of interests. The German working class supports the imperialistic tendencies of its Government as sincere patriots and in the name of the real benefits which a decisive victory would bring to the Fatherland. I fear that the “Proclamation to the Peoples of the World,” which is filled with the most noble humanitarian desires to end the war, will meet with a severe reception from German socialist circles which thoroughly understand the national profits to be derived from a complete victory over other races. That is why, gentlemen, I firmly and boldly maintain that the war should be carried to a decisive and complete victory by all the national strength of the Russian people in cooperation with her glorious allies.
Mr. Rodzyanko went on to state that there are rumors that the army is disintegrating, that it does not want to fight, that it is unwilling to undertake an advance, but that he could not believe these rumors because he could not believe that the Russian soldier, whom he is accustomed to honor for his courage and readiness to die, is [Page 57] capable of forming friendships with the enemy on the front. “My mind simply refuses to accept the thought that our brave and glorious troops can hesitate at this minute when the military situation imperiously demands that they undertake an aggressive forward movement and when our Allies are not sparing their blood to do all they can to ease our task.” Mr. Rodzyanko stated his conviction that the present disorders in the army are temporary and passing in their nature.
Mr. Rodzyanko went on to recall the inherent difficulties of the task of the Temporary Government and that they can only be met if the Government has the full confidence of the people and it is not hampered or interfered with. “In giving the Temporary Government this confidence and in giving them this completeness of power we must maintain our own faith that it will carry our country to a bright future, and most important of all, to a complete victory over our internal and external enemies.”
After a speech by Mr. F. A. Golovin, the President of the Second Duma, who confined himself to historical remarks concerning the activities of the Second Duma, Prince G. E. Lvov, the present Prime Minister, spoke. The first two thirds of his speech was exclusively devoted to an impassioned eulogy of the slow but sure development of the movement for Russian freedom and the part in this development played by the Russo-Japanese war and the First Duma. The latter part of his speech is given in full in enclosure 1,1 although he only touched upon the revolution and current events in extremely general terms.
The next speech, made by Mr. V. D. Nabokov, member of the First Duma, was purely eulogistic and historical.
He was followed by Mr. M. M. Vinaver, a member of the First Duma, and a leading figure in the present Constitutional Democratic Party, or Party of the People’s Freedom, the party of the present Ministers Milyukov, Shingarev, Manuilov and Nekrasov. In touching on current events he repeated that full confidence must be shown toward the Temporary Government.
Mr. I. I. Semenov, a member of the Labor Party of the First Duma, mentioned the necessity for a coalition cabinet. He was followed by L. M. Bramson, also a member of the labor fraction of the First Duma, and now active in the socialist movement in Petrograd, who stated that defense against the foreign enemy is the first duty of every Russian and denied that peace at any price is a dominant idea among the working class. He also stated that when the time comes a coalition cabinet should be formed.
[Page 58]Mr. Kuzmin-Karavaev, also a member of the First Duma, declared that the First Duma had been united, the revolution had been won by a united people and that the German enemy could only be defeated by Russian unity.
He was followed by Mr. V. E. Ershov, a member of the Social Democratic fraction of the First Duma, who stated that the working-class political party, like all other classes of the population, would have confidence in the Temporary Government as long as it worked in agreement with the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies. He further said that spreading reports of the large number of deserters does more to undermine the army than do the activities of the Social Democratic Party. “The working class strives to end the war but not by a separate peace, not by an agreement, injurious to our own interests, the interests of our allies, but by an agreement of the working classes of all nations. I greet the glorious Russian Army as the champion of the people’s freedom, liberty, and I hope that it will strike off the chains not only on us Russians, but also on the working classes of all countries that groan under the yoke of capitalism.” His peroration called forth a cry from a soldier in the gallery, “Thanks, comrade, in the name of the 11th Army Division.”
Mr. V. V. Shulgin then spoke, as the representative of the moderate parties of the Duma. In the first part of his speech he stated that the conservatives’ learned, year by year, to love and honor the Duma, and at last concentrated all their hopes on it. After the terrible tragedy of the summer of 1915 when the Russian armies retreated, this faith in the Duma became a passion. Mr. Shulgin stated that his party had feared the effects of a possible revolution on the fighting power of the army but had nevertheless taken a part in the revolution because the Duma had made the old regimé’s incompetency so patent. He ventured to think that the part played by the conservatives in exposing the old régime had not been less than that of the liberals and radicals. “Therefore,” he said, “we can not hold ourselves aloof from the revolution, we are welded into it and are under the moral responsibility that entails.”
The rest of Mr. Shulgin’s speech is given in full in enclosure 21 because it seems to this office that it is rich with significance and represents the opinion of the entire middle class of Petrograd. In fact it represents more than the opinion of the entire middle class of Petrograd, it represents the opinion of the entire population of Petrograd except the socialists or those who are secretly working for or desire the return of the old régime. In this mass of non-socialists must be included great numbers of the working classes outside of the factories, many soldiers and the greater part of the wounded now in Petrograd hospitals. But these elements are largely silent and [Page 59] until May 3 and 4 made no open expression of their opinion except through the columns of those newspapers which existed in Petrograd before the revolution, or in occasional indoor rallies and meetings.
Mr. Shulgin was followed by Mr. I. G. Tseretelli, a member of the Second Duma, whose speech, given in full in enclosure 31 was meant as a direct answer to Mr. Shulgin. What was said by Mr. Tseretelli is extremely significant of the attitude held by the majority of the socialists in Petrograd. He is, at the moment, the most prominent member of the Executive Committee of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies. Mr. Tseretelli’s statement that if the Temporary Government had not had the support of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies in the first days of the revolution it would not have been able to meet the situation, is undoubtedly true (see despatch No. 274 dated March 20, 19172). Although Mr. Tseretelli did not say so it is also true that the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies could overthrow the Temporary Government at any moment now, if it should so desire (see despatch No. 300 dated May 8, 19173). Mr. Tseretelli’s speech is very illuminating in that it clearly reveals the socialist attitude toward the Governments of the western Allies; namely, that the Allied Governments are bourgeois and therefore not, in the sense used by the socialists, democratic, and that it is Russia’s mission to change the character of the war, as waged now by the western Allies and America. The sentence underlined on page 6 of his speech is the keynote of the socialist attitude toward the war: “The best way to sow imperialism and barbarity in our own country is to crush the militarism of a foreign country by force of arms.” Indirectly, of course, it is a complete denial of the policy of the American Government and of the mature judgment of the American people reached after two and a half years of deliberation while closely watching the nature and the course of the European war. Mr. Tseretelli’s words regarding the man Lenin, too, are fraught with significance. Lenin is the man who advises the immediate overthrow of the Temporary Government and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, the immediate confiscation of the landed estates without waiting for the Constitutional Convention, the spread and systematization of fraternizing between the Russian and German soldiers, the immediate publication of the treaties of alliance between Russia and England and France, the immediate revision of the banks and their being merged into one big state bank. Lenin opposes the “Loan of Liberty,” declaring that funds should be obtained by confiscating money and property from the rich. He advises that all factories be immediately seized by the workmen for [Page 60] their own benefit, without reference to the owners or the managing personnel. All this is said, couched in the most inflammatory language. It is Lenin’s paper, the Maximalist newspaper Truth, that has advocated the formation of the “Red Guard” or “Workmen’s Guard,” an organization of armed factory workmen who marched at the head of some of the anti-Government parades on the 3d and 4th of May as well as at the head of the procession which was carrying a black flag with skull and crossbones. Only socialists are to be admitted into it. Many of the factory workers now go to and from their daily labor with guns across their shoulders and cartridges in the pouches at their belts. In several official proclamations and resolutions the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies has condemned Lenin and, specifically, the “Red Guard,” but in a public speech on such a solemn occasion as the meeting of the four Dumas on May 10, Mr. Tseretelli warmly defended Lenin, only making one short statement that he did not agree with Lenin. Tseretelli’s final sentence in regard to Lenin amounts to a statement that if the bourgeoisie really agrees with Mr. Shulgin then he, Tseretelli, agrees with Lenin.
The Consulate can not forbear to mention here what it considers the gravest menace to Russia at the present time; namely, the narrow partisanship, the bigotry and fanaticism of the socialists and the socialist press. They are Jesuitical in their casuistry and supersensitive to any criticism or opposition. They will defend any statement made by any one of their number. Among themselves, of course, there are differences of opinion. Tseretelli, for instance, has many times argued long and passionately in the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies against Lenin and his ideas, but he is ready to espouse the cause of Lenin against a bourgeois speaker. Their official acts are usually well-digested, but their utterances and writings are not so well balanced. They are incorrigibly bookish and partisan.
It is the socialist press and the socialist agitators that are responsible for the suspicion of the Temporary Government and that caused the crisis of May 3 and 4 and the ministerial crisis that is approaching. The socialists wield enormous power, infinitely more than any other party or parties in Petrograd to-day, but have been, up to the present, unwilling to accept any responsibility for that power. On account of this lack of responsibility their power has so far been used exclusively in destructive, undermining criticism of the government. They have never given the Temporary Government unconditional support. Their attitude has been, from the very first days of the revolution, that they would “support” the government “in so far” as it fulfilled the demands of “democracy.” The Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies officially voted to “support” the Loan of Liberty, but not one of the socialist papers or socialist organizations [Page 61] undertook a warm campaign in favor of the loan, except Plekhanov’s organ, Unity, which plays a very small part in the socialist movement. Their action on any number of questions has been similar. The letter of their law has been “support,” but the tone of their utterances has universally been “suspicion.”
The sensation of the day was the speech of the present Minister of War, Mr. A. I. Guchkov. Such a vigorous utterance and such an uncompromising statement of the bitter truth, as he sees it, was unexpected. Mr. Guchkov was the President of the Third Duma, and in the Fourth Duma was chairman of the Military and Naval Committee. In this latter capacity he devoted himself to building up the military and naval power of Russia before the war, and during the war, before the revolution. To him is attributed the greater part of the credit of unmasking Myasoedov, the spy, and War Minister Sukhomlinov. He is the “biggest “man in the Temporary Government. But he is bitterly hated by the socialists and, through them, has become unpopular in the army. The speech, given in part in enclosure 4,1 is the most important event in Petrograd since the patched-up compromise of the 4th of May.
Mr. Guchkov was followed by Mr. V. V. Evreinov, a Socialist Revolutionist of the Second Duma, who declared that Russia needs peace in order to carry out the creative work of the revolution. He qualified this statement by the proviso that the peace should not be a separate one, but must be “without annexations,” but a peace established by the “democracies of all countries.” Like the other socialists he accepts, as an axiom, the proposition that a peace on the basis of the heretofore published programs of the Allies or on the general basis of President Wilson’s messages and notes, is a peace “with annexations” and not the kind of a peace that Russia wants. Like other socialists his fundamental attitude toward the mutual relationships of the war and the revolution are diametrically opposed to the views of such men as Guchkov, Rodzyanko, Milyukov, and Shulgin, These latter believe that the reason the revolution occurred when it did was because the old régime was unable to continue the war to a victorious conclusion. The socialists do not believe this. The men above mentioned believe that Russia’s new-found freedom should first of all be used to strengthen her military power in order to win the war. The socialists are only interested in the war because it hinders the further progress of the revolution. This is the fundamental abyss existing between the two modes of thought in Petrograd to-day, and it is so fundamental, that, in the opinion of this consulate, it may be bridged but not obliterated.
[Page 62]Mr. N. V. Savich, a member of the Zemstvo-Octobrist fraction of the Fourth Duma, spoke of the formation of the “Progressive bloc” in the Duma before the revolution.
Mr. V. V. Volk-Karachevski, a People’s Socialist from the Second Duma, spoke in favor of a coalition ministry.
He was followed by Mr. S. I. Shidlovski, a member of the Fourth Duma, who dwelt on the effect of the “Progressive bloc” in bringing about the revolution.
Mr. V. I. Dzhyubinski, a member of the Labor fraction of the Fourth Duma, spoke in favor of a coalition, as also did Mr. I. N. Efremov, a member of the Progressive fraction of the Fourth Duma. Mr. Efremov said: “To-day in a free country, there is no place for an irresponsible opposition. While criticizing the government the opposition should always be ready to assist the government in meeting the questions of the day.”
Mr. Efremov was followed by Mr. M. I. Skobelev, a member of the Social Democratic fraction of the Fourth Duma and one of the prominent members of the Executive Committee of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, whose speech is given in full in enclosure 5.1
That part of Mr. Skobelev’s speech in which he rejects the formula, “peace within the country for the sake of war at the front,” is a very clear example of the fundamental attitude held by the socialists toward the war. The socialists feel that the war is of secondary importance to the revolution. They feel that the war must be brought to an end as soon as possible in order to prevent its further interference with the far more important business of the revolution. This feeling clearly emerges in the sentence in which Mr. Skobelev mentions the “difficulties that the present international situation places in the way of the revolution.” To him the Great War is merely an unfortunate “international situation” whose chief significance for Russia is that it hinders the free course of the revolution. The socialists have been bitterly opposed to the war since the beginning and the first use they are making of their new freedom is to discredit the war spirit. It is in this connection that they refused to admit that the middle classes had a share in the revolution. The middle-class orators at the meeting of the Duma all spoke of the unity of the Russian people during the revolution, meaning that the middle classes desired and assisted the revolution, because, besides being desirable in general, it was desirable at that very time since the old regimé was incompetent as regards the war. The socialists claim the revolution, in its entirety, for the working class and army, denying [Page 63] the share taken by the middle classes, and never mention the incompetence of the old régime with regard to the war.
It seems to this Consulate that the narrowly uncompromising nature of the socialist thought is most illuminatingly shown in that part of Mr. Skobelev’s speech in answer to the interruption from the floor regarding the action of the Finland Regiment in marching under arms to the Mariinski Palace where the Temporary Government was sitting. Mr. Skobelev stated, in defense of the regiment’s action, that “the troops, like all citizens, are now free to move about on the streets and express their political desires.” The implication from this is that the action of the regiment was blameless and not in the nature of an armed threat against the Temporary Government. That is the unofficial attitude and utterance of a very influential socialist. But the official attitude and utterance of the official organ of the socialist soldiers and workmen is to be seen in the decree of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies forbidding troops to issue into the streets without the order of the Executive Committee of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, and the appeal to the people not to carry arms when parading, as such action is not in accordance with the principles of political liberty. Skobelev’s speech is, in its entirety, absolutely typical of the present socialist psychology in Petrograd.
The last speech of the day was delivered by Mr. F. I. Rodichev, a member of the Constitutional Democratic Party (the Party of the People’s Freedom), who was in all four Dumas and who is now the Commissioner of the Temporary Government for Finnish Affairs. His speech aroused the greatest enthusiasm and is a passionate expression of the views of the middle classes who are solid in their support of the Temporary Government. Mr. Rodichev’s speech is given in full as enclosure 6.1
Referring to former statements regarding a coalition ministry a letter of the Prime Minister, Prince G. E. Lvov, is given below as addressed to M. V. Rodzyanko (and N. S. Cheidze):
In the invocation of the Temporary Government published April 26 [/May 9], it is stated among other things that the Government will renew its efforts leading towards the increase of the number of its members by summoning to responsible state work representatives of those creative and active forces of the country which heretofore have taken no direct and immediate part in the government of the state.
In view of the above I addressed in the name of the Temporary Government the president of the Council of the Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, the member of the state Duma, N. S. Cheidze, with the request that this suggestion be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee and the party represented by the above council.
This brought forth the following indefinite decision from the Executive Committee:
The Executive Committee of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies in their session of April 29 [/May 12] has after long debates, by a majority vote of 23 against 22 and 8 who have abstained from voting, decided against the timeliness of the representatives of the Executive Committee of the Deputies joining a coalition ministry.
This decision is not thought to be final. The adherents of a coalition ministry are confident that the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies will decide in favor of a coalition ministry. It is possible that, seeing the insignificant majority against the formation of a coalition ministry, the Executive Committee on their side will also revise the question.
The reason a coalition ministry is inevitable is that several members of the present ministry, in view of their lack of power, and the fact that their existence depends upon the will of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, will resign. Their places will be filled by members of the Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies, and it is believed two or three new ministries will be established. In view of the pending break, this will be the best solution, and it is believed the entire Temporary Government will not resign at once. This may delay the ever-present crisis. The masses want not separate peace, but an end of the war. A cessation of hostilities on the front now exists, and this state will continue. A Russian offensive should not be hoped for. The unofficial news from other districts is most disquieting.
I have [etc.]