Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, p. 443; Kerensky, Delo Kornilova, pp. 108-9; Browder and Kerensky, The Russian Provisional Government, vol. 3, p. 1571.
F. F. Kokoshkin and N. M. Kishkin, reports to the Kadet City Committee in Moscow, August 31, 1917 (a copy of which is in the Nicolaevsky Archive, Hoover Institution, Stanford, California), pp. 8-10\ Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, p. 444; Miliukov, Istoriia vtoroi russkoi revoliutsii, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 218-20; Rosenberg, Liberals in the Russian Revolution, pp. 229-30.
Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, p. 448.
Ibid., pp. 448-52.
Vladimirova, Khronika sobytii, vol. 4, p. 101.
Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, p. 445.
Gippius, Siniaia kniga, p. 179.
Browder and Kerensky, The Russian Provisional Government, vol. 3, p. 1573.
Oktiabr'skoe vooruzhennoe vosstanie, p. 137.
Vladimirova, Khronika sobytii, vol. 4, p. 104; see also Lehovich, White against Red, p. 124.
Vladimirova, Khronika sobytii, vol. 4, p. 110.
Browder and Kerensky, The Russian Provisional Government, vol. 3, pp. 1573-74.
Woytinsky, Stormy Passage, pp. 350-51.
Sukhanov, Zapiski 0 revoliutsii, vol. 5, p. 217.
8 * The Bolsheviks and Kornilov's Defeat
In September Smolny became the meeting-place for the Bolshevik Central Committee, and by the time of the October revolution it w as the hub of Bolshevik Party activity in Petrograd.
Novaia zhizn\ August 29, p. 2; Rasstrigin, "Revoliutsionnye komitety av- gustskogo krizisa," p. 130; Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, pp. 476-77.
Izvestiia, August 28, p. 3; August 29, p. 1; Novaia zhizn\ August 29, pp. \-2\ Rabochaia gazeta, August 29, pp. 2-3.
Izvestiia, August 29, pp. 1-2; Sukhanov, Zapiski 0 revoliutsii, vol. 5, p. 293.
Sukhanov, Zapiski 0 revoliutsii, vol. 5, pp. 291-92.
Lenin, PSS, vol. 34, pp. 119-21.
Shestoi s" ezd, pp. 255-57; 169-70.
Lenin, PSS, vol. 34, pp. 73-78. Although they were not published at the time, these materials had made the rounds of the top party leaders in Petrograd by August 27.
See above, pp. 111-12.
The only Soviet historian who has candidly discussed Lenin's misjudg- ments in regard to the threat of a rightist coup in August 1917 is V. I. Startsev. See his "V. I. Lenin v avguste 1917 godu," Voprosy istorii, 1967, no. 8, pp. 124-27.
Protokoly Tsentrarnogo komiteta, p. 32; V. V. Anikeev, DeiateVnosf TsK RSDRP(b) v 1917 godu: Khronika sobytii (Moscow, 1969), p. 267.
Two separate protocols of this meeting appear, side by side, in the volume of Petersburg Committee documents published in 1927 (Pervyi legaPnyi Peterburgskii komitet, pp. 237-54). Both variants are cryptic and incomplete, no doubt most of all a reflection of the prevailing tension. For the most part they supplement and reinforce each other; hence I have drawn upon both versions in attempting to reconstruct the discussion.
An invaluable analysis of the behavior of Moscow Bolsheviks in 1917 and of differences in outlook between younger Bolsheviks strongly represented in the Moscow Regional Bureau and more moderate, senior party officials concentrated in the municipal Moscow Committee is contained in Stephen F. Cohen's extraordinarily valuable biography of Bukharin, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution (New York, 1973), pp. 45-53.
See below, pp. 216-17.
On Bubnov's "leftism" at this time, see Komissarenko, "Deiatel'nost' partii bol'shevikov," pp. 185-86.
The extra edition is dated Tuesday, August 28, clearly a slip. August 28 was a Monday, and internal evidence indicates that this issue could not have been published before the early morning of August 20. Soldat did not normally appear on Monday, and, in contrast to Rabochii, there was no Soldat extra on Monday, August 28. Thus the regular issue and extra of Soldat on August 29 w ere the Military Organization's first press responses to the Kornilov affair.
Soldaty August 29, p. 4.
Significantly, apart from some leaflets produced wholly or in part by the Military Organization, Drezen, BoFshevizatsiia petrogradskogo garnizona, and the more recent Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, contain only two items relating to the organization's activity between August 27 and 30: the text of the resolution passed at the meeting of Military Organization representatives on August 28 (BoFshevizatsiia petrogradskogo garnizona, pp. 242-43; Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, pp. 482-83) and the responses of the Moscow-Narva District Bolshevik Committee to a Military Organization questionnaire about the state of the local Red Guard (Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, pp. 510-11).
Perepiska sekretariata TsK RSDRP{b)s mestnymi partinymi organizatsiiami, vol. 1, p. 31.
Rasstrigin, "Revoliutsionnye komitety avgustskogo krizisa," p. 112.
See below, p. 153.
The Military Section has been referred to variously in the literature as the Provisional Military Committee, the Operations Section, the Military Committee, and even the Military Revolutionary Committee; it should not be confused with the
Provisional Revolutionary Committee originally formed by the Executive Committees to investigate the July uprising or the more radical Military Section of the Petrograd Soviet.
2 3. Kornilovskie dni: Biulleteni vremennago voennago komiteta pri TsIK s 28 avgusta po 4 sentiabria 1917 g. (Petrograd, 1917); A. Anskii, ed., Protokoly Petrogradskogo soveta professional'nykh soiuzov za 1917 g. (Leningrad, 1927), p. 70.
See above, p. 77.
Raionnye sovety Petrograda, vol. 3, p. 292; Protokoly Petrogradskogo soveta professional'nykh soiuzov, p. 58.
Raionnye sovety Petrograda, vol. 3, pp. 292-93.
Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii: Razgrom kornilovskogo miatezha, pp. 498-99.
See Iu. S. Tokarev, Narodnoepravotvorchestvo nakanune velikoi oktiabr'skoi so- tsialisticheskoi revoliutsii (jmart-oktiabr' 1917 g.) (Moscow and Leningrad, 1965), pp.
46, and B. D. Galperina, "Raionnye sovety Petrograda v 1917 godu" (Candidate dissertation, Institute of History, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, 1968), pp. 228-38, for discussions of the important role of the Interdistrict Conference and district soviets in preparations to fight Kornilov.
This committee was composed of three representatives elected from the Peterhof Soviet; one representative each from five party organizations; one representative from each of the three commissariats in the district; and one representative each from the Putilov factory committee, the Putilov docks, the district board, the company of soldiers stationed at the Putilov factory, the district trade union bureau, and small enterprises in the district.