Meanwhile, the Czechs were capturing one city after another. On June 29 they seized Vladivostok and on July 6 Ufa. In Irkutsk, they ran into Bolshevik resistance, but they overcame it and on July 11 occupied the town. By this time, the entire length of the Trans-Siberian with its feeder lines in eastern Russia, from Penza to the Pacific, was in their hands.
The unimpeded Czechoslovak advance and the threat of defections from Bolshevik ranks filled Mirbach and Riezler with the gloomiest forebodings. Their fear was that the Allies would take advantage of the crisis to engineer an SR coup which would bring Russia back into the Allied fold. To prevent the catastrophe, Riezler urged Berlin to make approaches to the liberal and conservative Russians, represented by the Right Center, the Kadet Party, the Omsk Government, and the Don Cossacks.*
The alarming reports from the Moscow Embassy, added to the complaints of the military, moved the German Government to put the “Russian question” once again on the agenda. The question it faced can be formulated as follows: whether to stick with the Bolsheviks through thick and thin because (1) they devastated Russia so thoroughly as to remove her as a threat for a long time to come and (2) by acquiescing to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty they placed at Germany’s disposal the richest regions of Russia; or else to drop them in favor of a more conventional but also more viable regime that would keep Russia within the German orbit, even if this meant giving up some of the territories acquired at Brest-Litovsk. Advocates of these respective positions disagreed over the means. Their objectives were identical—namely, so to weaken Russia that she would never again help France and England “encircle” Germany and, at the same time, lay her wide open to economic penetration. But whereas the anti-Bolshevik party wanted to attain these objectives by carving Russia up into dependent political entities, the Foreign Office preferred to do so by using the Bolsheviks to drain the country from within. Settling this matter one way or another was a matter of some urgency in view of the unanimous opinion of the Moscow Embassy that the Bolsheviks were about to fall.
No one in the German Government desired the Bolsheviks to stay in power for long: the dispute was over the short term, the duration of the war. The difficulty of resolving the dispute was compounded by the volatility of the Kaiser, who one day fulminated against the “Jewish” Bolsheviks and wanted an international crusade against them and the next spoke of the same Bolsheviks as Germany’s best partners.
Ludendorff pressed to have the Bolsheviks liquidated. They were treacherous: “we can expect nothing from this Soviet Government even though it lives at our mercy.” He was especially worried by the “infection” of German soldiers with Bolshevik propaganda, which, following the transfer of hundreds of thousands of troops from the east, spread to the Western Front. He wanted to weaken Russia and “claim it [for Germany] by force.”89
The Moscow Embassy sided with the military, but it recommended revisions in the Brest Treaty as a price of winning support from respectable Russian political groupings.
The contrary point of view was advanced by Kühlmann and the foreign service (except for the Moscow Embassy) with the backing of many politicians and most of the German business community. A Foreign Office memorandum, drafted in May, formulated an argument for continued collaboration with the Bolsheviks:
The pleas for German help which issue from diverse sources in Russia—mainly from reactionary circles—can best be explained by the fear of the propertied classes of the Bolshevik threat to their possessions and assets. Germany is to play the role of the bailiff who chases the Bolsheviks out of the Russian house and restores the reactionaries, who will then pursue against Germany the very same policy which the tsarist regime pursued in the last decades.… In regard to Great Russia, we have only one overriding interest: to promote the forces of decomposition and to keep the country weak for a long time to come, exactly as Prince Bismarck had done in regard to France after 1871….
It is in our interest soon genuinely to normalize relations with Russia in order to seize the country’s economy. The more we mix in this country’s internal affairs, the wider will grow the chasm that already separates us from Russia.… It must not be overlooked that the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was ratified only by the Bolsheviks, and not even by all of them.… It is, therefore, in our interest to have the Bolsheviks remain at the helm for the time being. In order to stay in power, they will, for now, do all they can to maintain toward us the appearance of loyalty and to keep the peace. On the other hand, their leaders, being Jewish businessmen, will before long give up their theories in favor of profitable commercial and transport practices. Here we must proceed slowly but purposefully. Russia’s transport, industry, and entire national economy must fall into our hands.
90
With such thoughts in mind, Kühlmann advocated a strict hands-off policy in Russia. In response to what apparently was a Bolshevik inquiry, he wanted to assure Moscow that neither the Germans nor the Finns had any designs on Petrograd: such assurances would make it possible to shift Latvian troops from west to east, where they were desperately needed to fight the Czech Legion.91
For those who believe that some days are more “historic” than others, June 28, 1918, should loom as one of the most historic of modern times, for it was on that day that the Kaiser, with one impulsive decision, saved the Bolshevik regime from the sentence of death which it was in his power to pass. The occasion was a report on the Russian question forwarded to him at his headquarters. He had before him two memoranda, one from the Foreign Office, signed by Chancellor Georg von Hertling, the other from Hindenburg. The rapporteur, Baron Kurt von Grünau, represented the Foreign Office on the Kaiser’s staff. Anyone with experience in such matters is aware of the power which a rapporteur wields on such occasions. When he presents to the chief executive policy options which require the latter to make a choice on the basis of very imperfect knowledge of the facts, he can, by subtle manipulation, push the decision-maker in the direction he favors. Grünau made full use of this opportunity to advance the interests of the Foreign Office. To a large extent, the Kaiser made his critical decision as a result of the manner in which Grünau presented the policy options to him:
It was an essential trait of the impulsive nature of the Kaiser, who was ruled by momentary moods and sudden flashes, to identify himself with the first arguments which an adviser presented to him, to the extent that they appeared to him to be conclusive [
schlüssig
]. So it happened on this occasion, too. Counselor Grünau succeeded in informing the Kaiser of the telegram from Hertling [with Kühlmann’s recommendations] just before placing in front of him Hindenburg’s preference. The Kaiser immediately declared himself in agreement with the Chancellor and stated in particular that the Germans were to undertake no military operations in Russia, that the Soviet Government be informed that it could safely withdraw troops from Petrograd and deploy them against the Czechs, and finally, “without foreclosing future opportunities,” that support be extended to the Soviet Government as the only party that accepted the Brest Treaty.
92
The immediate effect of the Kaiser’s decision was to enable Trotsky to transfer Latvian regiments from the western border to the Volga-Ural front. Since they were the only pro-Bolshevik military units capable of combat, this action saved the Bolshevik regime in the east from total collapse. At the end of July, the 5th Latvian Regiment and elements of the 4th engaged the Czechoslovaks near Kazan, the 6th attacked them at Ekaterinburg, and the 7th suppressed an anti-Bolshevik uprising of armed workers at Izhevsk-Botkin. These operations turned the tide of battle in the Bolsheviks’ favor. In a telegram to Ioffe which German intelligence intercepted, Chicherin stressed how helpful it was for Soviet Russia to be able to withdraw troops from the German front and throw them against the Czechoslovaks.93
The long-term effect of the Kaiser’s verdict was to enable the Bolsheviks to weather the most critical period in their history. It would have cost the Germans no effort to seize Petrograd and
only a bit more to occupy Moscow, both cities being virtually undefended. Then they could have repeated their Ukrainian operation and placed a puppet government over Russia. No one doubted their ability to do so. In April, when the Bolsheviks had been in a stronger position, Trotsky told Sadoul that they could be removed by a party backed by the Germans.94 The Kaiser’s decision at the end of June ended this possibility permanently: six weeks later, when their offensive in the west ground to a halt, the Germans were no longer in a position to intervene decisively in internal Russian affairs. The knowledge that the Germans continued to back the Bolsheviks also disheartened the Russian opposition. Relaying the Kaiser’s wishes to Moscow, Kühlmann instructed the embassy at the end of June to continue collaborating with Lenin. On July 1, Riezler broke off talks with the Right Center.95
With the approach of summer 1918, the Left SRs grew restless. Romantic revolutionaries, they craved perpetual excitement: the ecstasy of October, the intoxication of February 1918, when the nation rose to repel the German invasion, unforgettable days celebrated by their poet, Alexander Blok, in the two most famous poems of the Revolution, “The Twelve” and “Scythians.” But this was all in the past, and now they found themselves partners of a regime of calculating politicians, who made deals with the Germans and the Allies, and invited the “bourgeoisie” back to run factories and lead the armed forces. What happened to the Revolution? Nothing the Bolsheviks did after February 1918 pleased them. They despised the Brest Treaty, which in their eyes made Germany the master of Russia and Lenin a lackey of Mirbach’s: instead of consorting with the Germans, they wanted to arouse the masses against these imperialists, with bare hands if need be, and carry the Revolution into the heart of Europe. When the Bolsheviks, disregarding their protests, signed and ratified Brest, the Left SRs quit from the Sovnarkom. They opposed no less vehemently the policy adopted by the Bolsheviks in May 1918 of sending armed detachments of workers to the villages to extract grain, since it caused bad blood between peasants and workers. They objected to the reintroduction of capital punishment and saved many lives by having their members veto every death sentence passed on political prisoners by the Collegium of the Cheka. Inexorably, they came to regard the Bolsheviks as traitors to the Revolution. As their leader, Maria Spiridonova, put it: “It is painful now … to realize that the Bolsheviks, with whom until now I have worked side by side, alongside whom I have fought on the same barricade, and with whom I have hoped to fight the glorious battle to the end, … have taken over the policies of the Kerensky government.”96
In the spring of 1918, the Left SRs assumed toward the Bolsheviks the same attitude that the Bolsheviks had adopted in 1917 toward the Provisional Government and the democratic socialists. They posed as the conscience of the Revolution, the incorruptible alternative to a regime of opportunists and compromisers. As the Bolshevik influence among industrial workers waned, the Left SRs became a dangerous rival, for they appealed to the same anarchic and destructive instincts of the Russian masses which the Bolsheviks themselves had exploited on the road to power but once in power did all they could to quell. They enjoyed support among some of the rowdiest urban elements, including radical Petrograd workers and the sailors of what had been the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. Essentially, they appealed to the very groups which had helped bring the Bolsheviks to power in October and now felt betrayed.
On April 17–25, the Left SRs held a congress in Moscow. It claimed to represent over 60,000 members. Most delegates wanted a clean break with the Bolsheviks and their “komissaroderzhavie” (“rule of the commissars”).97 Two months later (June 24), at a secret meeting, the Central Committee of the Left SR Party decided to raise the banner of rebellion.98 The “breathing spell” purchased by Brest was to be brought to an end. They would introduce at the forthcoming Fifth Congress of Soviets, scheduled for July 4, a motion calling for the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and a declaration of war on Germany. If it failed to pass, the Left SRs would initiate terroristic provocations to bring about a breach between Russia and Germany. The resolution adopted by that meeting read as follows:
The Central Committee of the Left SR Party, having examined the present political situation of the Republic, resolves that in the interest of the Russian as well as the International Revolution, an immediate end must be put to the so-called breathing spell created by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
The Central Committee believes it to be both practical and possible to organize a series of terrorist acts against the leading representatives of German imperialism. In order to realize this, the forces of the party must be organized and all necessary precautions taken so that the peasantry and the working class will join this movement and actively help the party. Therefore, at the instant of the terrorist act all papers should make known our participation in the events in the Ukraine, in the agitation among the peasants, and in the blowing up of arsenals. This must be done after Moscow gives a signal. Such a signal may be an act of terrorism or it can take another form. In order to distribute the forces of the party, a committee of three (Spiridonova, Maiorov, and Golubovskii) has been appointed.
In view of the fact that, contrary to the wishes of the party, this may involve a collision with the Bolsheviks, the Central Committee makes the following declaration: We regard our policy as an attack on the current policy of the Council of the People’s Commissars, but definitely not as a fight against the Bolsheviks themselves. As it is possible that the Bolsheviks may take aggressive counteraction against our party, we are determined, if necessary, to defend our position with force of arms. In order to prevent the party from being exploited by counterrevolutionary elements, it is resolved that our new policy be stated clearly and openly, so that an international socialist-revolutionary policy may subsequently be inaugurated in Soviet Russia.
99
As this resolution indicates, the Left SRs intended in many ways but one to emulate Bolshevik actions in October 1917: the one crucial difference being that they did not aspire to power. That was to be left in Bolshevik hands. The Left SRs wanted only to compel the Bolsheviks to abandon their “opportunistic” policies by provoking Germany to attack Soviet Russia in reaction to anti-German terrorism. The plan was entirely unrealistic: it gambled on the expectation that the Germans would impulsively give up the immense benefits they had gained at Brest, and altogether ignored the common interest linking Berlin and Moscow.
Spiridonova, the most powerful personality on the three-person Left SR committee, was possessed of a courage that in earlier centuries characterized religious martyrs, but nothing remotely resembling common sense. Foreigners who observed her during these days left very uncomplimentary accounts. For Riezler she was a “dried-up skirt.” Alfons Paquet, a German journalist, saw her as
87. Maria Spiridonova, second from left.
a tireless hysteric with a pince-nez, the caricature of Athena, who, while speaking, always seemed to be reaching out for an invisible harp, and who, when the hall would burst into applause and rage, would impatiently stamp her feet, lifting the fallen shoulder straps of her dress.
100
Immediately after the decision, the Left SRs went to work. They sent agitators to the military garrisons in Moscow and its suburbs: some of these they won to their side, the rest they succeeded in neutralizing. Left SRs working in the Cheka assembled a military force to fight in the event the Bolsheviks counterattacked. Preparations were made to carry out a terrorist act against the German Ambassador: his assassination was to serve as the signal for a nationwide rising. Emulating Bolshevik tactics on the eve of October, the Left SRs did not conceal their plans. On June 29, their organ Znamia truda carried on its front page an appeal to all able-bodied Left SRs to report no later than July 2 to their party’s regional offices; regional committees of the party were instructed to give them military training.101 The next day, Spiridonova declared publicly that only an armed uprising could save the Revolution.102 It remains an inexplicable mystery how Dzerzhinskii and his L
atvian associates in the Cheka could have ignored these warnings and let themselves be caught by surprise on July 6.
A partial, but only partial, answer to this question is provided by the fact that several of the conspirators worked in the directing organs of the Cheka. Dzerzhinskii had chosen as his deputy a Left SR, Petr Aleksandrovich Dmitrievskii, popularly known as Aleksandrovich, in whom he had complete faith and entrusted with broad authority. Other Left SRs employed by the Cheka and involved in the conspiracy included Iakov Bliumkin, whose responsibility was counterespionage and penetration of the German Embassy, the photographer Nicholas Andreev, and D. I. Popov, the commander of a Cheka cavalry detachment. These individuals hatched a conspiracy within the headquarters of the secret police. Popov assembled several hundred armed men, mostly pro-Left SR sailors. Bliumkin and Andreev assumed responsibility for assassinating Mirbach. The two familiarized themselves with the building of the German mission and took photographs of the escape route they were to take after killing the ambassador.
The troika which supervised these preparations planned to stage the uprising on either the second or the third day of the Fifth Congress of Soviets, scheduled for the evening of July 4. Spiridonova was to introduce a motion calling for the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and a declaration of war on Germany. Since the Mandate Committee, which determined the representation at the congress, had generously allotted them 40 percent of the seats, and it was known that many Bolsheviks opposed Brest, the Left SR leaders thought they stood a good chance of winning a majority. If, however, they failed, they would raise the banner of rebellion with a terrorist act against the German Ambassador. July 6 was a favorable day for action because it happened to fall on St. John’s Day (Ivanov den’), a Latvian national holiday which the Latvian Rifles were to celebrate with an outing at Khodynka Field on the outskirts of Moscow, leaving behind only a skeleton staff to protect the Kremlin.*
The Russian Revolution Page 98