Reverting to the subject of his opening remarks, Miliukov said that once there had been a possibility of cooperation between the Duma and government but this was no longer the case. Citing Shuvaev’s “I may be a fool, but I am no traitor,” Miliukov concluded his speech with a rhetorical flourish, repeated several times. “Is it stupidity or is it treason” that Russia was unprepared to conduct operations in the Balkans after Romania had entered the war on her side? That she had delayed granting Poland autonomy until the Germans had beaten her to it? That the government treated as sedition the Duma’s efforts to organize the home front? That the Police Department instigated factory strikes and engaged in other “provocations” to provide an excuse for peace negotiations? To each of these questions, the audience lustily responded: “Stupidity!” “Treason!” “Both!” But, Miliukov answered himself, it really did not matter, since the effect was the same. His parting words demanded the dismissal of the cabinet.
The “subjective certainty” which Miliukov claimed to possess of high officials’ acts of collusion with the enemy had no basis in fact: to put it bluntly, it was a tissue of lies. Miliukov knew, even as he spoke, that neither Stürmer nor any other minister had committed treason, and that whatever his shortcomings, the Prime Minister was a loyal Russian. Later on, in his memoirs, he admitted as much.77 Nevertheless, he felt morally justified slandering an innocent man and sowing the most damaging suspicions about the government because he thought it essential for the Kadets to take charge of the country before it fell apart.78
In reality, he contributed as much as anything the government did or failed to do to inflaming revolutionary passions. The effect of his speech, which attracted immense attention since he spoke for Russia’s most important political party, was enhanced by his reputation as a prominent scholar: it seemed inconceivable that a man of his stature would make such grave accusations unless he had incontrovertible proof. Some Russians even believed that Miliukov received from Allied sources additional incriminating evidence which he withheld for security reasons. The government forbade the press to publish Miliukov’s speech or to comment on it. The prohibition only served to heighten interest. Reproduced by typewriter, mimeographed, and printed on broadsheets, Miliukov’s address is said to have spread in the rear and at the front in millions of copies.79 It had an immense impact: “The people and the troops, simplifying the speech, concluded: Duma deputy Miliukov had proven that the Empress and Stürmer were selling out Russia to Kaiser Wilhelm.”80 The passions unleashed by Miliukov’s speech played a major role in promoting the February Revolution,81 in which anger over alleged government treason was initially the single most important motive.
The Duma sessions which followed brought the authorities little comfort. Shulgin, the leader of the Progressive Nationalists, said that the country which for two years had bravely fought the enemy “had come to be mortally afraid of its own government … the men who had fearlessly looked Hindenburg in the eye lost courage confronting Stürmer.”82 And the left applauded this monarchist and anti-Semite. The only speaker to defend the authorities was N. E. Markov (known as Markov II), a notorious reactionary and pathological Judeophobe, who later, in emigration, would back the Nazis: in this period he happened to receive regular subsidies from Protopopov.
The November 1–5, 1916, sessions of the Duma marked the onset of a revolutionary psychosis: an intensely felt, irrational desire to pull down the entire edifice of monarchic Russia. This psychosis, long prevalent among radical intellectuals, now seized the liberal center and even spilled into conservative ranks. General V. N. Voeikov, who observed this phenomenon from headquarters at Mogilev, speaks of a “widespread conviction that something had to be broken and annihilated—a conviction that tormented people and gave them no peace.”83 Another contemporary wrote in December 1916 of a “siege of authority that has turned into sport.”84
How pervasive this attitude had become may be demonstrated on the behavior of the Tsar’s immediate family, the grand dukes, who now lined up with the Progressive Bloc. In late October, before the Duma had met, Nicholas spent some days in Kiev with his mother and several relatives, who warned him against the influence of his wife and Rasputin.85 On November 1, he received at headquarters Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, who, besides being a well-known amateur historian, took pride in his reputation as the most radical of the Romanovs, the Russian Philippe-Egalité. He brought a letter addressed to the Tsar in which he implored him to be rid of Rasputin. But he went further, alluding to the evil influence of the Empress, an issue obviously of the greatest delicacy:
