Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:35:51.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917 (Part Two)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Leopold Haimson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1965 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

36 Martov-Potresov, letter No. 178, Nov. 11, 1912 (NA). See note 17.

37 Interviews of Miliukov by B. N. Nicolaevsky recorded in 1927, now in the latter's personal archives.

38 These negotiations between the Moscow Informatsionnyi Komitet and the Bolsheviks are discussed in the following published documents: [received by Lenin on Mar. 9 (22), 1914], and [Mar. 11 (24), 1914], published in , No. 2, 1959, j pp. 13-17; [Apr. 27 (May 10), 1914], [May 13 (26), 1914], and , No. 6, 1958, pp. 8-10, 12-13.

39

40 p. 13.

41 , No. 6, 1958, pp. 8-10.

42 ibid., pp. 12-13.

43 [June 4 (17), 1914], ibid., p. 20.

44 , NO. 1 (Jan.), 1914, p. 147.

45 ibid., p. 159.

46 , No. 1 (Jan.), 1914.

47 Ibid., pp. 288, 299.

48 , p. 75.

49 The data on which the following discussion of the role Russian Mansonry during the last years of the empire is based have been drawn from the following sources: , (Paris, 1931); (New York, 1955); (New York, 1962), pp. 138-42; and especially the unpublished interviews on the subject conducted by B. N. Nicolaevsky in the 1920's with N. S. Chkheidze and A. la. Galpern (records in the personal archives of B. N. Nicolaevsky).

50

51 See This letter, written when Kuskova was in her eighties, is indeed permeated with the conviction that all this was in fact “brilliantly accomplished.“

52 Miliukov writes: “I should like to stress in addition the tie between Kerensky and Nekrasov—and the two ministers I have not mentioned, Tereshchenko and Konovalov. All four are very different in their personalities, backgrounds, and political roles; but they are united by more than just radical political views. Besides this, they are connected by some kind of personal tie, not only of a purely political, but also in its way of a politico-moral, character. It would seem that they are even united by mutual obligations, stemming from one and the same source… . Their friendship goes beyond the general realm of politics. From the remarks made here one can infer precisely what tie unites the central group of the four… . If I don't speak more clearly about it here it is because, while observing the fact, I did not make out its origin at the time and learned of it from an accidental source.“ And in an earlier, even more revealing, passage, discussing the selection of the Ministers of the Provisional Government at the onset of the February Revolution: “It was most difficult of all to recommend the generally unknown novice in our ranks, Tereshchenko, the sole 'capitalist minister’ among us. From what ‘list’ had he ‘emerged’ in the Ministry of Finance? I didn't know then that the source was the same as that from which Kerensky had intruded himself, from which stemmed the republicanism of our Nekrasov, and from which originated the unexpected radicalism of the ‘Progressisty, ’ Konovalov and Efremov. I learned of this source much after the event.” , II, 332-33 and 311-12. As a matter of fact, according to reliable testimony, both Nekrasov and Kerensky served as secretaries of the Executive Committee of the Velikii Sovet narodov Rossii, the new Masonry's national organization, during the years leading up to 1917: Nekrasov in 1912-13 and again, following Kolubakin's early death at the front, from the summer of 1914 to the summer of 1916; Kerensky, after the summer of 1916. This information is drawn from interviews recorded by B. N. Nicolaevsky in the 1920's with A. la. Galpern, a prominent Menshevik and at the time a member of the Executive Committee of the Velikii Sovet narodov Rossii; it is partially confirmed by the less complete testimony of N. Chkheidze. (Records in the archives of B. N. Nicolaevsky.)

53 Again we should note that these changes in the composition of the labor force were most dramatic precisely among those strata of the industrial working class which eventually displayed in 1917 the greatest revolutionary explosiveness: thus, while the total size of the Russian industrial labor force rose, during the war years, by only 6.5 per cent (although its composition, of course, was much more substantially affected), the size of the stormy- Petersburg industrial labor force rose by 58.5 per cent; that of the metalworking industry as a whole, by 69 per cent; and, to use an even more precise yardstick, that of the “vanguard of the Russian revolutionary working class” of Bolshevik fame, the workers in the Petersburg metalworking industry, by 134 per cent. See (Moscow, 1958), pp. 72-83.