Turning to all nations, bled white and ruined by the monstrous war, we declare that the time has come to launch the decisive struggle against the rapacious strivings of the governments of all countries. The time has come to take the decision on war and peace into one’s own hands.
Conscious of its revolutionary might, Russian democracy declares that it will resist with all means the rapacious policy of its ruling classes, and calls on the nations of Europe to undertake jointly decisive actions on behalf of peace.…
We shall staunchly defend our own freedom against all reactionary infringements from within and from without. The Russian Revolution will not yield to the bayonets of conquerors and will not allow itself to be crushed by foreign military might.188
Such rhetoric must have appeared reasonable to the intellectuals who drafted the “Appeal,” but, like the concept of “dual power,” it left the man in the street perplexed. If Russia’s “ruling classes” indeed pursued a “rapacious policy,” why keep them in power and why be “bled white” in their “monstrous war”?
Miliukov, who was in charge of foreign policy, went his own way. He did not share the socialists’ optimism about the peace movement in Germany, and believed that their appeal would evoke no response. From Trepov’s revelations the preceding December, it was known that the Allies had promised Russia Constantinople and the Straits. Miliukov did not wish to renounce these claims for two reasons: such renunciation would raise doubts in the West about Russia’s commitment to stay in the war, and it would open the floodgates to German peace propaganda. His insistence on Russia’s adhering to its territorial claims led to the first clash between the government and the Soviet.
At a press conference on March 22, Miliukov outlined the Government’s war aims. These included “liberation” of the Slavic peoples of Austria-Hungary, the “fusion” of the Ukrainian territories of Austria-Hungary (i.e., Galicia) with Russia, and acquisition of Constantinople and the Straits.189 Socialist intellectuals interpreted Miliukov’s views as a challenge to their “Appeal,” which demanded the renunciation of “rapacious” acquisitions. Under pressure from the Soviet, and at the insistence of several cabinet members, especially Kerensky, the government agreed to issue an official statement of war aims more in line with the position of the Ispolkom. Approved by the latter with some revisions, it was released on March 27.190 The statement asserted that Russia had no desire to “lord it over other nations, to deprive them of their national property, to seize by force territories belonging to others”: her objective was a “lasting peace on the basis of national self-determination.” This formula represented a capitulation to the socialists, although Miliukov would later argue that it could have been interpreted to mean Russia’s right to claim enemy territories.191 One month later the controversy over war aims would flare up again, this time causing a major political crisis.
From February 23 until February 28, the Revolution was confined to Petrograd. The country went about its business, as if unaware that anything unusual had occurred. The chronicle of these days192 indicates that the first city to react was Moscow, which had strikes and demonstrations on February 28 and the following day elected a workers’ soviet. On March 1, meetings took place in several provincial towns, including Tver, Nizhnii Novgorod, Samara, and Saratov. On March 2, other cities followed suit. There was no violence: when the Communist chronicler says that the inhabitants of various cities “joined the Revolution,” he means that crowds held peaceful celebrations in support of the Provisional Government. The slow pace at which the Revolution spread indicates the extent to which its origins were connected with the specific conditions in the capital city—namely, exceptionally severe shortages of food and fuel and grievances of the military garrison. It helps explain why as late as March 2 the generals and politicians could still believe that the Tsar’s abdication would keep the Revolution confined to Petrograd. As it turned out, however, it was the news of Nicholas’s abdication, published on March 3, that made the nation realize it had had a revolution: the result was a rapid breakdown of authority.
In the course of March there emerged in all the cities soviets modeled on that of Petrograd, the executives of which were taken over by socialist intellectuals. In early April, the provincial soviets sent representatives to Petrograd where they entered the Petrograd Ispolkom to form an All-Russian Ispolkom (VTsIK, or CEC).
The Revolution spread across the country peacefully: in the phrase of W. H. Chamberlin, it was “made by telegraph.”193 The change of regimes was everywhere accepted as an accomplished fact: no resistance was encountered and therefore no force used. As yet, neither class nor ethnic hostilities emerged to disturb the nearly unanimous relief at the end of the old regime. In some localities, celebrations in honor of the Provisional Government were joined by army officers and ex-tsarist officials.
One of the unanticipated effects of the Revolution and the ideal of democracy which it promoted was the emergence of nationalist movements in areas where the population was predominantly non-Russian. They were led by the indigenous intelligentsia which, in addition to the usual socialist or liberal demands, claimed for their regions some degree of autonomy. The first to be heard from were the Ukrainians, who on March 2 formed in Kiev a soviet called Rada: its initial demands on the government were cultural, but it soon also asked for political powers. Other nationalities followed suit, among them Russia’s scattered Muslims, who in May held an All-Russian Congress.194
Vasilii Rozanov said of Nicholas’s abdication that the Tsar let it be known he “disowned such a base people.”195
According to his diary, Nicholas slept soundly the night that followed the signing of the abdication manifesto. He arrived in Mogilev on March 3 in the evening to learn from Alekseev that his brother had renounced the crown and left the fate of the monarchy up to the Constituent Assembly. “God knows who talked him into signing such rot,” he noted. He now drafted yet another abdication manifesto in which he transferred the crown to his son. Alekseev decided not to inform the government of Nicholas’s latest change of mind. He subsequently entrusted the document to General Denikin for safekeeping.196
The following day, Nicholas sent Prime Minister Lvov a list of requests. He asked to be allowed to proceed to Tsarskoe with his suite and to remain there until the children recovered, following which he wished to take up residence in Port Romanov on the Murmansk coast. Once the war was over, he wanted to retire to the Crimean resort of Livadia. In a coded message to headquarters, the Provisional Government approved these requests.197
Because the ex-Tsar threatened to become a major issue of contention between the government and the Soviet, the cabinet soon decided that it would be politically more expedient to have Nicholas and family out of the country. In the first week of March, it sounded out the British, Danish, and Swiss governments about the possibility of asylum for the Imperial family. On March 8/21, Miliukov told the British Ambassador that he was “most anxious that the Emperor should leave Russia at once” and would be grateful if Britain offered him asylum, with the proviso that Nicholas “would not be allowed to leave England during the war.”198 Britain hesitated at first but on March 9/22 the Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, cabled to the British Embassy in Petrograd: