Lenin, unfettered by any restraints and commanding a party which had 77,000 members in April 1917,55 confronted a Provisional Government constrained by the fact that it held only half the power, the other half being held by the soviets. The government's hands were also tied by the lack of a state apparatus. The former machinery of state had been dismantled and discarded as a vestige of tsarist rule, and the creation of a new apparatus was delayed by the emergence of dual power everywhere, the local soviets successfully challenging the young administration of the Provisional Government. Lastly, the Provisional Government was hobbled by moral standards and sentiments that would soon be regarded as "survivals of capitalism," such as keeping one's promises, being loyal to one's allies, and having faith in democracy and the people. The representatives of the moderate socialist parties (SRs and Mensheviks), who from the days of the first coalition in May 1917 played a growing role in the Provisional Government, were hampered by their theoretical views concerning history and revolution, by the belief that social classes come to power in a certain sequence, following historic laws. Moreover, the members of the Provisional Government seemed to find power too hot to handle, as if waiting for the moment when they could be rid of it. "On April 20," Shlyapnikov writes, "Kamenev criticized the Provisional Government at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Soviet: 'The solution is to transfer power to another class.' Some voices came from the ministerial benches: 'Then you take the power.'"56 In June, at the Congress of Soviets, Tsereteli protested with a certain sadness that at the time there was no political party in Russia willing to say, "Give us the power." Then came Lenin's famous reply: "There is such a party. No party can refuse power, and our party certainly does not." The Provisional Government believed that no one in Russia wanted power. Lenin's words were not taken seriously. History has shown that when such politicians as Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler did tell the truth about their intentions no one believed them.
The weakness of the government left nothing to stand in the way of the revolutionary tide sweeping over Russia. The revolution became a blind revolt, giving vent to popular hatreds that had accumulated over the centuries. The intelligentsia, which for decades had laid the groundwork for revolution, now looked upon it with bewilderment. In his diary Gorky voiced the intellectuals' feelings: "We worshipped the revolution like romantic lovers. But a shameless brute came along and violated our beloved."57 The Provisional Government, the government of the Russian intelligentsia, was unavoidably drifting to the left, attempting to catch up with the rebelling masses but always lagging behind, because the people, spurred on by Lenin's extremist slogans, dreamed of an end to all government. No one could be expected to outdo Lenin in the field of revolutionary slogans; he preached the expropriation of the expropriators, a phrase which translated into simple language had an irresistibly attractive ring: "Steal back what was stolen."58
In June, Kerensky, as minister of war, was able to persuade the army that an offensive was possible. On June 18 the Russian troops went into action, scoring major successes. Rumors concerning a tightening of military discipline sowed alarm among the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison, who feared they might be sent to the front. Demands for the overthrow of the Provisional Government received a favorable hearing, especially with the First Machine Gun Regiment, which was strongly influenced by the Bolsheviks and anarchocommunists.
During the preparations for the armed demonstration of July 4 by Petrograd workers and soldiers joined by 10,000 sailors from Kronstadt, Lenin left the capital to rest at Bonch-Bruevich's country home in Finland. He returned on July 4 and spoke without enthusiasm to the demonstrators from the balcony of Kshesinskaya's palace. It was clear to him that he would not be able to seize power at this time.
To this day historians disagree as to whether this demonstration was the result of a Bolshevik plot or was a spontaneous movement of the workers, soldiers, and sailors. Even the official historians of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have not come to a definite conclusion. In his History of the CPSU, Short Course, Stalin wrote: "The Bolshevik party was opposed to armed action at that time, for it considered that the revolutionary crisis had not yet matured, that the army and the provinces were not yet prepared to support an uprising in the capital."59 However, the post-Stalin version of the History says that the "workers and soldiers of Petrograd would have had enough forces to overthrow the Provisional Government and take power," but that it was still too early for such an action because the "majority of the population was still following the SRs and Mensheviks."60
Lenin did not object to the July actions, but he did not insist on their continuation after troops loyal to the government and the Soviet entered Petrograd. For him, the July demonstrations were a rehearsal, a test of the adversary's will to resist. Zinoviev recalled the situation:
During the July days our entire Central Committee was opposed to an immediate takeover. Lenin thought the same. But when, on July 3, the wave of popular indignation rose high, Comrade Lenin sprang into action. There and then, in the refreshment room on the top floor of the Tauride Palace, a small meeting was held—Trotsky, Lenin, and myself. Laughing, Lenin said to us: "Shouldn't we try for it now?" But he immediately added: "No, we couldn't take power now; it wouldn't work out, because not all the soldiers at the front are with us yet."61
Zinoviev is slightly mistaken, because on July 3 Lenin was not in Petrograd. Nevertheless, Zinoviev accurately describes Lenin's attitude toward the demonstration: if it succeeds, we will take power, "laughing"; if it fails, we will try again.
The July rehearsal ended unhappily for the Bolsheviks, mainly because the Petrograd Soviet supported the Provisional Government. Bonch- Bruevich recalls a conversation with Lenin after the July disaster: "'What now?' I asked Vladimir Ilyich. 'Armed insurrection. There's no other way.' 'When?' 'When circumstances allow. But no later than the fall.'"62 It could be that Bonch-Bruevich, who wrote his memoir after the party's victory, exaggerated Lenin's optimism a bit. On July 5, when Trotsky met with the Bolshevik leader, Lenin was in a panic: "'Now they will shoot us down, one by one,' he said. This is the right time for them.' But he overestimated the opponent—not his venom, but his courage and ability to act."63
Lenin had good reason to worry. One of the decisive arguments that convinced the troops loyal to the Provisional Government and the Soviet to move against the demonstrators were documents suggesting that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were German spies. In his History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky referred to July 1917 as "the month of the most gigantic slander in world history." The accusation that the Bolsheviks had received German money was used to justify the Provisional Government's decision to arrest the Bolshevik leaders. Lenin fled to Finland. The arrested Bolshevik leaders, Kamenev, Kollontai, Lunacharsky, and Trotsky, were soon released.
The controversy over "German money" continues even today. In this argument two different questions have to be distinguished: (1) Was Lenin a German agent? (2) Were the Bolsheviks receiving money from Germany?