Comrade Kerensky. Boris Kolonitskii

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ revolutionaries might have been inclined to level at Kerensky.

      After the overthrow of the monarchy, constructing revolutionary biographies was a common method of consolidating authority, and people of quite different views described their leaders as ‘true’ and ‘proven’ champions of freedom, even as they cast doubt and sought to refute similar claims on the part of their political opponents.

      For Kerensky, his claim to the image of a champion of freedom was particularly important, and we have seen that both he and his supporters went to great lengths to build it up. No other political leader was on the receiving end of quite so many biographical essays in 1917.

Kerensky’s supporters sometimes went further and sought to place him in a higher league than other champions of freedom. Some time before 23 March the chairman of the students of Kharkov University who were from Borisoglebsk greeted him as ‘foremost among the great champions of freedom’.²⁰⁵ In the months that followed, other citizens pointed out how special was his place in the pantheon. On 10 July a telegram was sent to the minister declaring that the Socialist Revolutionaries of the Molitovka factory in Nizhny Novgorod ‘greet you, the foremost champion of free, revolutionary Russia, and express to you, and through you to the Provisional Government, our complete confidence.’ A representative of the Mogilyov Soviet of Peasant Deputies called him nothing less than ‘the apostle of revolution and liberator of the peasantry’.²⁰⁶

      In some writing of the time, this still youthful politician was seen as a unique, and even single-handed, liberator of Russia. The attitude is found in letters and resolutions addressed to Kerensky even in the autumn of 1917. ‘You are the person to whom all Russia is indebted for liberation from the oppression of tsarism.’²⁰⁷ In another instance, he is described as Russia’s principal liberator and Leader of the champions of freedom. A non-commissioned officer called Romanov, who wanted permission to change his name, which had become an unwelcome reminder of the old regime, wrote, ‘I beg you, great champion!!! For all the Russian people who endured this yoke and bridle, you, Mr Kerensky, leading all the others, were the great liberator from this oppression and lifted this yoke.’²⁰⁸

      The image of Kerensky as the great liberator was even (negatively) exploited by propagandists of the Austro-Hungarian army in an Austrian leaflet targeted at Russian soldiers on the front line. The minister, it was claimed, had earlier stated he was seeking to end hostilities. ‘Your trustworthy Comrade Kerensky took, as the liberator of the people, all power into his hands and promised the people the war would soon end.’²⁰⁹

      Kerensky himself regularly referred in his public speeches to his service to the revolution, and he used that approach more frequently than other politicians in the spotlight. He also took an active role in promoting the cult of champions of freedom, sometimes at the prompting of public opinion. A general meeting of the trading officials of Tyumen, held on 5 March, sent him the following message: ‘… on this momentous day of elections to the city’s Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, [this assembly] asks you, dear Alexander Fyodorovich, to convey our greetings to the holy martyrs and champions of freedom Yekaterina Breshkovskaya, Vera Figner, Nikolai Morozov and other veterans of the liberation movement and to tell them we will give our lives for the ideals for which they fought.’²¹⁰ In this address Kerensky is mentioned as the worthiest representative of the new generation of revolutionaries, authorized to intercede with his legendary predecessors who symbolize the fraternity of champions of freedom. In other messages he is even mentioned as ranking with the ‘holy martyrs’. The All-Russia Congress of Teachers, for example, passed a resolution sending greetings to Kerensky, Breshko-Breshkovskaya, Figner, Plekhanov ‘and other great revolutionaries’.²¹¹

The young politician occupied an honourable place in the ranks of the acknowledged veterans of the revolutionary movement, which meant all efforts to promote the cult of champions of freedom redounded, particularly, to his credit. Moreover, consolidation of the cult was in harmony with the vector of the new politics of memory after February 1917.

      Revolutionary Russia needed to rewrite its history to create a portrait of the past suitable for political use in the new situation. Some events needed to be forgotten, others to be radically rethought. All political organizations found themselves drawn inescapably into implementing projects of the politics of memory, and sometimes initiated them. There were occasions when party leaders at various levels had no option but to respond to spontaneous crowd action, when monuments of the old regime were destroyed or there were demands to change names reflecting the tsarist era. Streets, institutions and villages had to be renamed, new monuments created, and thought given to the old burial sites of revolutionaries. Proper tribute had to be paid to fallen champions of freedom and proper recognition given to living veterans of the revolutionary struggle.²¹²

      The clash of rival cultural memory projects was not at the forefront of political battles, but aspects of the struggle for power were evident in numerous conflicts regarding memorable sites and sites of remembrance. Having the right to initiate such projects could be important in confirming authority and was sought by politicians and administrators, military commanders and members of all sorts of committees. In elaborating the politics of memory there was great reliance on the already advanced political culture of the revolutionary underground, with its long tradition of sanctifying its heroes and martyrs. During the revolution, earlier propaganda texts were republished. Later there were new biographies.²¹³ The Socialist Revolutionaries were particularly busy in this respect, glorifying their party comrades and famous terrorists.²¹⁴ The status of champion of freedom was retrospectively bestowed on figures from Russian history: Alexander Radishchev had already been named as the first Russian champion of freedom,²¹⁵ although others awarded that accolade to the Decembrists.²¹⁶

      The promotion of the cult of champions of freedom was in line with the public mood, and this had an impact on how mass culture developed. Impressive numbers of new cinematographic films were made: The Grandmother of the Russian Revolution (Martyr for Freedom) about Yekaterina Breshko-Breshkovskaya; Champions of Freedom; The Sun of Freedom (Hail to the Champions of Freedom); The Death of Lieutenant Schmidt, and others.²¹⁷ There was demand from cinema-goers, readers and consumers for the memorialization of champions of freedom, and that was fertile ground for implementing projects of the politics of memory.

The need for funerals of participants in the revolution brought forth new symbols and rituals based on the revolutionary tradition. As a result of burials and reburials of opponents of the old regime, as well as of other symbolic acts, the cultural and political topography of towns and villages changed, and that reflected back on the ritual of revolutionary celebrations and the scenarios of political rallies. Urban political spaces were recodified and new politically sanctified locations appeared. The emergence of local cults of champions of freedom was exploited by diverse political forces, and the revolutionary past became an important asset in the struggle for power. A number of local rallies assumed national significance. The revolutionary authorities in Sevastopol sent an expedition to recover the remains of Lieutenant Pyotr Schmidt and other participants in the 1905 uprising. These champions of freedom were reburied with due ceremony in Sevastopol, with Admiral Alexander Kolchak, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, playing a prominent role. He headed those following the revolutionary hero’s coffin. The event was an impressive demonstration by those in favour of continuing the war against Germany. It seems unlikely that Schmidt’s actions in 1905 were consonant with the admiral’s understanding of the naval code of honour, but he recognized the political necessity of a solemn reburial of the revolutionaries. In the aftermath of February 1917, Kolchak succeeded in maintaining discipline in the fleet for some time, helped by his authority as a respected naval commander, his ability to find common ground with the local committees, and his pragmatic ability to employ rhetoric, symbolism and revolutionary ritual to achieve his goals.

      It seemed that, under his leadership, the relatively ‘healthy’ Black Sea Fleet could become a focus for patriotic mobilization, and the politics of memory had a contribution to make to this. СКАЧАТЬ