The month and a half that lay ahead gave Duma deputies an opportunity to caucus. The initiative for these informal meetings came from the small Progressive Party, representing the wealthy and liberal industrial bourgeoisie. Its leaders hoped to repeat the achievement of the Union of Liberation and forge a broad patriotic front of all the parties save those of the extreme right and left. The military reverses had now driven into the opposition conservative elements that in peacetime would never have joined a cabal against the Crown. Participating, in addition to the Progressives, were the Kadets, Left Octobrists, and Left Nationalists. Such was the origin of the Progressive Bloc, which would soon gain a majority in the Duma and in 1916 decisively influence the events leading up to the Revolution.*
The main theme running through these discussions, known to historians largely from the reports of police informers, was that in her tragic hour Russia required firm authority, but that such authority could no longer be provided by the discredited bureaucracy: it could only come from a popular mandate, as represented by the Duma. This principle agreed upon, the participants nevertheless had difficulty formulating a concrete program. The more radical wing, led by P. P. Riabushinskii, Russia’s leading entrepreneur and spokesman for the Moscow business community, wanted to force the issue and compel the government to capitulate. A more moderate group, led by the Kadet M. V. Chelnokov, the head of the Union of Cities, preferred some sort of compromise.72
The explosive atmosphere in which the Duma held its meetings in July and August 1915 cannot be appreciated without reference to the military disasters which accompanied them. By the time the Duma reconvened, the Russian armies had abandoned Poland and the enemy was in sight of Riga. The mood at headquarters in Mogilev was one of unrelieved gloom. General G. N. Danilov, the Quartermaster General and one of Russia’s most influential strategists, told a friend a few weeks earlier that one might as well give up all thought of strategy because the Russians had no capability to undertake active operations: their only hope lay in the “exhaustion of the German forces, good luck, and the protection of St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker.”73 At the cabinet meeting of July 16, Polivanov prefaced his remarks with the terse statement: “The country is in danger.”74 Alexander Krivoshein, in charge of agriculture, told friends that the government resembled an “asylum.”75
The Duma opened as Russian troops were evacuating Warsaw. The senile, universally despised Goremykin addressed the assembly in an uncharacteristically conciliatory tone, conceding that the government had a “moral obligation” to cooperate with it. When he finished, deputy after deputy, representing the entire spectrum of opinion save for the extreme right, assailed the government for its incompetence.76
Notably virulent was the leader of the Trudovik group, Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky, who was destined to play a major role in the revolution. Kerensky, who was only thirty-three when the war broke out, was an ambitious lawyer and a rising star in Russian socialist politics.77 He first acquired fame as a defense attorney in well-publicized political trials. A skilled orator, he had a hypnotic influence on crowds, but was without either strategic sense or analytic powers. In the Fourth Duma, he promptly rose to the fore as the most inflammatory speaker on the left. After the arrest in November 1914 of the Bolshevik deputies (whom he defended in court), he became the chief spokesman of the socialist factions, easily outshining the leader of the Menshevik deputation, the Georgian Nicholas Chkheidze. In 1917, with the publication of police dossiers on Kerensky, it became known that from the instant the war had broken out he rallied socialist intellectuals against the government and attempted to organize a workers’ soviet.78 After the defeat of the Russian armies in Poland, Kerensky worked for the overthrow of the tsarist regime and the sabotaging of the war effort. In the fall of that year, he agitated against worker participation in the joint committees established to improve defense production (see below) and identified himself with the Zimmerwald resolution of anti-war socialists, in the drafting of which Lenin had played a major role. Indeed, by then there was little to distinguish him from Lenin, and in the eyes of the police he was the “chief ringleader of the present revolutionary movement.”79 His biographer believes that in the summer of 1915, Kerensky, in association with his friend and fellow Mason N. V. Nekrasov, and Chkheidze, “came close to precipitating a revolution of the masses around ‘bourgeois’ leadership.”80
