The Liberals Begin to Stir¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter dissects the political paralysis of Russia’s liberal bourgeoisie during the deepening crisis of 1915-1916, arguing that their fear of revolution rendered them incapable of seizing power from a crumbling autocracy. The military catastrophe forced the Tsar to recall the Duma in July 1915, and the liberal-dominated Progressive Bloc was formed, commanding 241 of 407 Duma seats. Its manifesto demanded “a strong, firm and active authority” to lead the country to victory. Yet the Bloc’s project was fatally contradictory: it sought to extract concessions from the Tsar without mobilising the masses, whose revolutionary potential terrified it. The chapter quotes the Police Department director noting that strike outbreaks acted “in a chilling manner” on Cadet tactics, and Foreign Minister Sazonov’s contemptuous observation that Milyukov “fears a social revolution more than anything else” and that the majority of Cadets were “trembling for their investments.”
The liberals’ dilemma is captured through Maklakov’s parable of a chauffeur driving a car to disaster while those who can drive dare not interfere for fear of leaving the vehicle without a driver. The Bloc thus “spent its time in discussion that did not lead to action,” debating the railway crisis, fuel crisis, and fear of revolution like so many Oblomovs. When the Tsarina urged Nicholas to “show your fist,” he dissolved the Duma on 3 September 1915 and replaced ministers with reactionaries. The workers responded with a 150,000-strong general strike in Petrograd under the slogan “Down with the government!” — not “Convene the Duma.” The Bolshevik wing continued the strike for an extra day against the Liquidators’ wishes, demonstrating the proletariat’s recovery from earlier setbacks.
The chapter polemicises sharply against the liberal strategy of pressuring the autocracy from above while refusing to mobilise the masses. It notes that the Tsar had secretly contacted Berlin for a separate peace, and that the liberals’ plan for a palace coup to install Nicholas’ brother Mikhail “came to nothing.” When Prince Lvov led a delegation to plead with the Tsar to “place the heavy burden of power upon the shoulders of men made strong by the nation’s confidence,” Nicholas refused to receive them. The dissolution exposed liberal impotence: “Power lay firmly in the hands of the Romanov-Rasputin regime.” Even Milyukov’s famous November 1916 speech asking “Is this folly or treason?” — intended to frighten the autocracy into concessions — became a “storm-signal for the revolution” against its author’s wishes, as workers used its contents to denounce the regime. The chapter concludes that the liberals’ fear of the masses ensured they would “knuckle under to the autocracy” rather than countenance another 1905.