A governmental crisis, as a result of the demonstration by these
revolutionary bodies, appeared absolutely inevitable. But the impression
produced by the demonstration was lost as soon as it was reported from
the front that the revolutionary army had advanced to attack the enemy.
On the very day that the workingmen and the Petrograd garrison demanded
the publication of the secret treaties and an open offer of peace,
Kerensky flung the revolutionary troops into battle. This was no mere
coincidence, to be sure. The projectors had everything prepared in
advance, and the time of attack was determined not by military but by
political considerations.
On the 19th of June, there was a so-called patriotic demonstration in
the streets of Petrograd. The Nevsky Prospect, the chief artery of the
bourgeoisie, was studded with excited groups, in which army officers,
journalists and well-dressed ladies were carrying on a bitter campaign
against the Bolsheviki. The first reports of the military drive were
favorable. The leading liberal papers considered that the principal aim
had been attained, that the drive of June 18, regardless of its ultimate
military results, would deal a mortal blow to the revolution, restore
the army's former discipline, and assure the liberal bourgeoisie of a
commanding position in the affairs of the government.
We, however, indicated to the bourgeoisie a different line of future
events. In a special declaration which we made in the Soviet Council a
few days before the drive, we declared that the military advance would
inevitably destroy all the internal ties within the army, set up its
various parts one against the other and turn the scales heavily in favor
of the counter-revolutionary elements, since it would be impossible to
maintain discipline in a demoralized army--an army devoid of controlling
ideas--without recourse to severe repressive measures. In other words,
we foretold in this declaration those results which later came to be
known collectively under the name of "Kornilovism." We believed that the
greatest danger threatened the revolution in either case--whether the
drive proved successful, which we did not expect, or met with failure,
which seemed to us almost inevitable. A successful military advance
would have united the middle class and the bourgeoisie in their common
chauvinistic tendencies, thus isolating the revolutionary proletariat.
An unsuccessful drive was likely to demoralize the army completely, to
involve a general retreat and the loss of much additional territory, and
to bring disgust and disappointment to the people. Events took the
latter course. The news of victory did not last long. It was soon
replaced by gloomy reports of the refusal of many regiments to support
the advancing columns, of the great losses in commanding officers, who
sometimes composed the whole of the attacking units, etc. In view of its
great historical significance, we append an extract from the document
issued by our party in the All-Russian Council of Soviets on the 3rd of
June, 1917, just two weeks before the drive.
* * * * *
"We deem it necessary to present, as the first order of the day, a
question on whose solution depend not only all the other measures to be
adopted by the Council, but actually and literally the fate of the whole
Russian revolution the question of the military drive which is being
planned for the immediate future.
"Having put the people and the army, which does not know in the name of
what international ends it is called upon to shed its blood, face to
face with the impending attack (with all its consequences), the
counter-revolutionary circles of Russia are counting on the fact that
this drive will necessitate a concentration of power in the hands of the
military, diplomatic, and capitalistic groups affiliated with English,
French and American imperialism, and thus free them from the necessity
of reckoning later with the organized will of Russian democracy.
"The secret counter-revolutionary instigators of the drive, who do not
stop short even of military adventurism, are consciously trying to play
on the demoralization in the army, brought about by the internal and
international situation of the country, and to this end are inspiring
the discouraged elements with the fallacious idea that the very fact of
a drive can rehabilitate the army--and by this mechanical means hide the
lack of a definite program for liquidating the war. At the same time, it
is clear that such an advance cannot but completely disorganize the army
by setting up its various units one against the other."
* * * * *
The military events were developing amid ever increasing difficulties in
the internal life of the nation. With regard to the land question,
industrial life, and national relations, the coalition government did
not take a single resolute step forward. The food and transportation
situations were becoming more and more disorganized. Local clashes were
growing more frequent. The "Socialistic" ministers were exhorting the
masses to be patient. All decisions and measures, including the calling
of the Constituent Assembly, were being postponed. The insolvency and
the instability of the coalition regime were obvious.
There were two possible ways out: to drive the bourgeoisie out of power
and promote the aims of the revolution, or to adopt the policy of
"bridling" the people by resorting to repressive measures. Kerensky and
Tseretelli clung to a middle course and only muddled matters the more.
When the Cadets, the wiser and more far-sighted leaders of the coalition
government, understood that the unsuccessful military advance of June
18th might deal a blow not only to the revolution, but also to the
government temporarily, they threw the whole weight of responsibility
upon their allies to the left.
On the 2nd of July came a crisis in the ministry, the immediate cause of
which was the Ukrainian question.
This was in every respect a period of most intense political suspense.
From various points at the front came delegates and private individuals,
telling of the chaos which reigned in the army as a result of the
advance. The so-called government press demanded severe repressions.
Such demands frequently came from the so-called Socialistic papers, also
Kerensky, more and more openly, went over to the side of the Cadets and
the Cadet generals, who had manifested not only their hatred of
revolution, but also their bitter enmity toward revolutionary parties in
general. The allied ambassadors were pressing the government with the
demand that army discipline be restored and the advance continued. The
greatest panic prevailed in government circles, while among the
workingmen much discontent had accumulated, which craved for outward
expression. "Avail yourselves of the resignations of the Cadet ministers
and take all the power into your own hands!" was the call addressed by
the workingmen of Petrograd to the Socialist-Revolutionists and
Mensheviki in control of the Soviet parties.
I recall the session of the Executive Committee which was held on the
2nd of July. The Soviet ministers came to report a new crisis in the
government. We were intensely interested to learn what position they
would take now that they had actually gone to pieces under the great
ordeals arising from coalition policies. Their spokesman was Tseretelli.
He nonchalantly explained to the Executive Committee that those
concessions which he and Tereshchenko had made to the Kiev Rada did not
by any means signify a dismemberment of the country, and that this,
therefore, did not give the Cadets any good reason for leaving the
Ministry. Tseretelli accused the Cadet leaders of practising a
centralistic doctrinairism, of failing to understand the necessity for
compromising with the Ukrainians, etc., etc. The total impression was
pitiful in the extreme: the hopeless doctrinaire of the coalition
government was hurling the charge of doctrinairism against the crafty
capitalist politicians who seized upon the first suitable excuse for
compelling their political clerks to repent of the decisive turn they
had given to the course of events by the military advance of June 18th.
After all the preceding experience of the coalition, there would seem to
be but one way out of the difficulty--to break with the Cadets and set
up a Soviet government. The relative forces within the Soviets were such
at the time that the Soviet's power as a political party would fall
naturally into the hands of the Social-Revolutionists and the
Mensheviki. We deliberately faced the situation. Thanks to the
possibility of reelections at any time, the mechanism of the Soviets
assured a sufficiently exact reflection of the progressive shift toward
the left in the masses of workers and soldiers. After the break of the
coalition with the bourgeoisie, the radical tendencies should, we
expected, receive a greater following in the Soviet organizations. Under
such circumstances, the proletariat's struggle for power would naturally
move in the channel of Soviet organizations and could take a more normal
course. Having broken with the bourgeoisie, the middle-class democracy
would itself fall under their ban and would be compelled to seek a
closer union with the Socialistic proletariat. In this way the
indecisiveness and political indefiniteness of the middle-class
democratic elements would be overcome sooner or later by the working
masses, with the help of our criticism. This is the reason why we
demanded that the leading Soviet parties, in which we had no real
confidence (and we frankly said so), should take the governing power
into their own hands.
But even after the ministerial crisis of the 2nd of July, Tseretelli and
his adherents did not abandon the coalition idea. They explained in the
Executive Committee that the leading Cadets were, indeed, demoralized by
doctrinairism and even by counter-revolutionism, but that in the
provinces there were still many bourgeois elements which could still go
hand in hand with the revolutionary democrats, and that in order to make
sure of their co-operation it was necessary to attract representatives
of the bourgeoisie into the membership of the new ministry. Dan already
entertained hopes of a radical-democratic party to be hastily built up,
at the time, by a few pro-democratic politicians. The report that the
coalition government had been broken up, only to be replaced by a new
coalition, spread rapidly through Petrograd and provoked a storm of
indignation among the workingmen and soldiers everywhere. Thus the
events of July 3rd-5th were produced.