Kerensky was seen as ‘man of the people’, when he initially entered politics, sources suggest he wore workers clothes and not those expected of politicians. He was very much a popular character upon his promotion to Prime Minister largely because of his past as a lawyer and the cases he argued. Historians and critics do not dispute this by any means. ‘Kerensky became the personification of everything that was good and noble in Russia’ were the words used by E.H. Wilcox in Russia’s Ruins. Nevertheless, his actions counted once in power. The Provisional Government might well have failed because it did not address the issue that affected about 80% of its population, land reform. The peasant wished the land that they worked and harvested so tirelessly on would be taken from the landowning classes and redistributed amongst themselves. This single issue could have put the government in a more favourable position, weakening their opposition and ensuring their survival. However, the government did acknowledge the presence of the problem but not its significance. Because of their comprehension that they were only a temporary government, they set up a committee to advise them on future policy. The committee recommended that this issue should be resolved by the Constituent Assembly.
The Constituent Assembly would come into existence following the general election. The Provisional Government delayed this because of problems of organisation and the war. This problem helped mobilise opposition against the government. Historians such as Read acknowledge that land reform was a problem that needed immediate attention. Furthermore, with respect to policy and its effect upon the Provisional Government, it published a programme, which included eight principles. This did not strengthen their standing but in fact weakened it substantially. Amnesty for all political prisoners only created greater opposition to them at a time when the War was reliant upon public support. The right to strike, allowed workers to protest on an economy that was gravely unstable. Moreover, the abolition of police units prevented them from maintaining control, and the granting of permission of soldiers returning from the front to retain their arms helped equip the opposition with weapons. Reed felt the “Provisional Government alternated between ineffective reforms and stern repressive measures.” Though the accusation of ‘stern repressive measures’ may be an exaggeration, he clearly understands the weaknesses of the government. Therefore, the destruction of the Provisional Government and the state of affairs created by them is far more understandable under the circumstances. Nevertheless, this must be put into context of the political situation. The Provisional Government was simply a temporary government it had neither been elected nor approved by the public; hence, its authority was minimal. These circumstances led to the creation of the dual authority.
The collapse of the Provisional Government is also partly due to its ineffectiveness and reliance upon the Soviet for approval. The Petrograd Soviet was a representative body of the workers and soldiers alike. On it sat elected members, something the Provisional Government lacked, from specific groups of workers and soldiers. Though it was set up prior to the Provisional Government, it was illegal until its existence. Morgan Philips Price helps understand why the Soviet did not assume power itself, ‘The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries believed that at that stage of the Revolution the workers and soldiers of the Army were unable to run the country alone and needed the cooperation of the middle-class Liberals.’ Hence, the existence of the power sharing structure between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet was formed. However, over time the Provisional Government only became weaker whilst the Soviet gained greater strength. Crucial amongst all the changes that occurred in relation to power between the Soviet and the government was the edict Soviet Order No.1. This gave the Soviet control of the Army because it controlled the soldiers’ support. The government without the backing of Army was toothless and would now have to rely on approval of its policies from the Soviet. The importance of the Soviet having such power would be limited had it not been for the First World War, which made soldiers a vital part of the system. Kerensky saw it ‘as an act of provocation’ but hoped ‘that this phase would soon pass’. The Soviet would later become a powerbase for the Bolsheviks from which they would operate the October Revolution.
The Bolsheviks were one of the most effective opposition groups and it would be hard not to recognize their participation in the collapse of the Provisional Government. Marxist historians such as John Reed, Albert Rhys Williams and Bessie Beatty all believed the Bolsheviks to be the main cause of the failure and destruction of the Provisional Government. However, these historians’ accounts must be taken in consideration of their bias, stressing the effectiveness of the Bolsheviks, as they were all in favour of the October Revolution and were indeed present at the time. All contemporary historians at the time, on either side of the debate, wrote with a certain amount of emotion or political motivation. Hence, many of their accounts have been sensationalised and must be approached with a level of criticism. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did play a crucial role in removing the government and probably the most crucial with respect to the physical seizure of power. At the time of its removal from power, the Provisional Government had very little support. Kerensky’s image was ruined; the War had drained his support when he ordered another offensive in July known as the ‘Kerensky Offensive’, which failed dramatically. Strikes and protests were ripe, many of which the Soviet had organised, which were crippling the economy. The Bolsheviks by this stage controlled the Soviet and hence had significant power. The key factor that distinguished the Bolsheviks from any other revolutionary or even political party was their organisation. They were extremely effective in mobilising supporters. Bolshevik propaganda was tremendously successful in getting through to the ordinary citizen with simple slogans, which Lenin was very good at inventing. An example of such famous slogans, was ‘Land, Bread and Peace’, a simple promise that people desperately needed and wanted. However, the Bolsheviks were not always a popular party.
It is important to understand that though the continuing of war was a deeply unpopular action, the alternative was even more unpopular. Russian-German relations were always based on mistrust because of the historical wars fought previously. German occupation was unacceptable to the Russian public and hence the Provisional Government was in a difficult situation. In fact, during the February Revolution many were in favour of war. However, it is hard to maintain an optimistic outlook for long without effective propaganda. The Bolsheviks had always taken the view of opposing the war and this made them popular in late 1917. Hence, they led an attempted coup known as the July Days in which the Cossacks defeated them. Kerensky exploited the Bolshevik-German links. Lenin received funding from the Germans, who wished to see an end to the war; conversely, this led to them being out of favour. Many of the important figures were locked up such as Trotsky whilst Lenin went into exile. At this stage, the Bolsheviks seemed unlikely to ever gain any support. The Kornilov affair changed this as Kerensky released the prisoners on the condition that they defended the city from the rogue General, Kornilov. Once defeated, the Bolsheviks were now back in favour and where more popular than before because they were seen as heroes. Hence, the attacks it now laid upon the Provisional Government were far more effective and destructive. Nevertheless the opposition created toward the Provisional Government would not have had the same appeal to the public had it not be so unpopular because of the War.
The First World War was indeed the paramount factor resulting in the collapse of the Provisional Government. It provided a catalyst for the various other factors, intensifying attacks and opposition to the government. Kerensky’s support of the war was damaging to his reputation and the authority of the Provisional Government. The Kerensky Offensive, which involved a great loss of life, catapulted the government into unpopularity. It was not until this stage that the government had reached its lowest level of popularity. Hence, the October Revolution faced little or no resistance. ‘The citizen slept in peace, ignorant of the change from one power to another’ was the description used by Trotsky. Revisionist Historians like Read, Figes and Acton, all accept this to be the case. This Great War gave strength and linked opposition together against the Provisional Government. The Soviet Order No. 1 would not have been effective if the soldiers were not at war since their use would be limited. The economy would not be so greatly strained and Bolshevik slogans would not have the effect they did upon the people. World War I was perhaps not the trigger that led to the October Revolution but was an underlying and long-term cause that helped surface other problems and factors, which were exploited by opposition groups. The February Revolution was indeed important in the War; America’s joining would not have occurred had it not been for the change of regime, since it did not want to support an anti-democratic autocracy. Therefore, the Provisional Government was crucial to the war and had it not been for the joining of the USA, the Germans might not have been as willing to sign a peace deal, following the October Revolution, helping to consolidate Bolshevik power.
In conclusion, the Provisional Government lacked both authority and legitimacy, which were both characteristics of the Petrograd Soviet. Elections or some sort of approval was needed to give the government these features. The issue of land reform needed addressing and historians have seen this as an important factor in the government’s loss of popularity. Furthermore, the propaganda from opposition groups, in particular the Bolsheviks, was effective in destroying any respect for the Provisional Government. Their liberal policies enabled this, which were unavailable to democratic countries during times of war. Kerensky was initially popular but the war damaged his image. The Great War created a situation of chaos and anarchy in Russia and government policy at the time did nothing to aid the situation. Its collapse was a result of a variety of factors and reasons but the far-reaching effects of the war were to have devastating results in both social and economic quarters. Moreover, the war only helped increase the opposition to the government and led to their downfall in October 1917.
Bibliography
-
John Reed, Ten Days That Shook The World, 1919
-
E.H. Wilcox, Russia’s Ruins, 1919
-
Morgan Philips Price, My Three Revolutions, 1969
-
Robert Service, Society and Politics in the Russian Revolution, 1992
-
Richard Pipes, The Three Whys of the Russian Revolution, 1997
John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World (1919)
Maxim Gorky, letter to his son (April, 1917)
E.H. Wilcox was very impressed with Kerensky and praised him in his book, Russia’s Ruin (1919)
John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World (1919)
Morgan Philips Price, My Three Revolutions (1969)
Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams
Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams
Leon Trotsky, statement made to the Petrograd Soviet (24th October, 1917)
