WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?

[valmont]

I understand that after  the Tsar was removed from power, there was someone who took control of Russia.


It was not Lenin. Who was he?

[Forum Admin]

Alexander Kerensky was the leader of the first Provisional Government before the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.

[valmont]

Yes I had that idea too, that there had been only one leader of the provisional government before the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government.
I checked the name on the Internet, and turns out that Kerensky was the second leader. the first was Prince George Lvov. The first time I read that name was in a letter from GD Dimitri where  he says  he sent a telegram to prince Lvov expressing his willingness to support the provisional government.
I learn something interesting today. Thanks

[Forum Admin]

To be precise, which I was not earlier, for which I apologize:
Prince G.E. Lvov was first Prime Minister of the Provisional Govt. from March 2, 1917 until he resigned in favor of Kerensky on July 7.

[LisaDavidson]

There was no single leader after the Tsar abdicated. What actually occured is that there was a tremendous vacuum. Into the void stepped the Provisional Government, which was nominally in power, and the Soviets, which were actually grass roots democratic councils throughout Russia. Into this fragile democracy, the Germans injected the Bolsheviks who overthrew the former and co-opted the later.

There was no one singularly in power in the way the tsar was until the rise of Stalin in the 1920's.

[Robert_Hall]

Do not forget the Mensheviks, as well as the myriad other parties !

[Father_Nick]

I am sure that after the Tsar's abdication, it practically accidentally fell to Alexander Kerensky to lead the disorganized and chaotic country.  Remember, there was a revolution WITHIN a revolution; Lenin was always in the background but really didn't assume actual power until the Bolshevik seizure of the Winter Palace in November of 1917.  It's fascinating, however, to muse about what would have been Russia's fate had Lennin lived and Stalin not succeeded.  I am in the minority of people who believe Lenin would have kept Russia from the extremes of terror Stalin subjected it to; who knows?  But, it's still a great topic for discussion.

[Joanna Mayer]

A  very good question indeed, considering that Lenin was often willing to go to  great extreams in order to achieve his goals. Some of his attitutudes towards the peasantry in the early 1920s were  reminicent of Ivan Grozney-- Ivan the Terrible. Of course Civil war is usually the most dreadful sort of conflict.

[Belochka]

After Michael refused to accept the Crown, following Nicholas' abdication, could it be said that there was a short period, however brief where there was no-one in real power?

The Duma was prorogued by Golitzin by Imperial decree and therefore making Rodzianko's position as the Duma President tenous to say the least. Nicholas' decree to institute Civil Rule by his Prime Minister had no legal status ... because there was no P.M. anymore.

My understanding was that Rodzianko set up a "Temporary Committee" which was deemed to be the de-facto Authority because it was set up quickly, unelected and unopposed.

Prince Lvov was not a member of the last Duma, but was selected to become the first Provisional Government Prime Minister because of his popularity and political experience as the Zemstvo Chairman. Before Lvov became the new leader, someone had to institute and decide for that selection process to take effect.

My point is that there were a few hours where any legal authority lay with this newly formed "Temporary Committee". Rodzianko was briefly calling the shots.

Grand Duke Michael also wrote in his diary on February 27 "... it was the beginning of anarchy".

Any thoughts?

[LisaDavidson]

Well, it certainly wasn't the beginning of anarchy. The period between the abdication of the tsar and the 2nd Revolution was punctuated by an increasingly weak government and the concurrent rise of the Soviets, which were councils. Into this very fragile and emerging democracy, the German General Staff decided to send the Bolsheviks. This was an ultimately evil act about which it may be argued resulted in the death of millions of people - perhaps more victims than the Holocaust. And yet, one hears very little of this evil or measures taken to ensure it does not happen again. Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and retainers were among the first million people killed as a result of war time tactics in WWI having reprecussions for many generations.

[Belochka]

I believe the very idea of anarchy implies that there was disorder combined with political and social confusion (as defined in the Oxford dictionary).

Following Emperor Michael's abdication there was a very brief period where there was no government per se, whether it may be defined as autocratic or elected.

What followed was indeed confusion, however brief at the top level (excluding what was happening on the streets) with a small select group of men from the now defunct Duma who acted on their own initiative before Prince Lvov was duly selected to represent the newly established Provisional Government.

After the fall of the Romanov dynasty ... there were no set rules as to what happens next. There was no protocol to follow.

The German government was planning the fall of the Romanov Dynasty for a few years. They were fighting Russia directly (WWI), and were only too pleased to assist in the country's total collapse.

The German government's secret intervention was a calculated deliberate act.



 

[LisaDavidson]

I think that you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes anarchy. Anarchy to me is the absence of government or legitimate authority and something a little more subtle - the absence of agreement about how to run a society. Russia in 1917/18 simply does not meet this standard. Maybe Somalia in the 1990's - maybe Iraq during the American invasion meet this standard, but not Revolutionary Russia.

Michael Alexandrovich was never Emperor. His vision of a Russia able to decide her future - and whether or not there would be a monarchy - never came to pass. Perhaps in time there will be a chance to fulfill what he spoke about, perhaps not.

I do not think a time of uncertainty or confusion is anarchy - as I said - it's a much more extreme condition.

[Belochka]

With respect Lisa I must disagree with you.

Michael was provided the right to reign by the Abdication Manifesto which Nicholas signed on March 2 at 15 hrs 5 min 1917. All inheritance passed to him. This Manifesto was an official legally binding document, plain and clear. Technically there was no legal vacuum because succession was assured.

So by virtue of this document Michael was the new Emperor.

The fact that he renounced all his Imperial rights handed to him hours before could only have been come about by being the Emperor no matter what period of time had elapsed.

It was Michael who broke the chain of succession. To achieve this legally, he signed his own Abdication Manifesto on March 3.

Emperor Michael's final deed was to effectively cause the collapse of the Romanov dynasty in Russia. He  seemed to have expected to rule as regent to Alexei, but refused to rule in his own right. The reason could lie in his own belief that Alexei's removal to rule was contrary to the Laws of Succession. He questioned the legitimacy of this act.

Michael knowingly submitted Russia to the republican cause. This he did because he was informed that his personal safety could not be guaranteed. He was effectively an Emperor without a government while being surrounded in the streets by a mutinous Army calling for destruction of the monarchy.

So he really did decide Russia's fate (future) on advice of the Committee at the fateful meeting at # 12 Millionnaya Ulitsa.

[Belochka]

To continue ...

While the various meetings on Millionaya was taking place we are reminded by memoirists of the day (Shulgin and G.D. Marie etc), that at the time there were conflicting opinions everywhere. The Soviet Deputies sought a Republic, initially the Temporary Committee believed the monarchy should continue but were unaware how this should come about. These are surely indicators of confusion brought about by uncertainty of what to do next?

Crawford @ p 299 writes that the Duma Comittee were arguing over what position they were going to take. These words give me the impression that there was real uncertainty which indicates in my mind that there was the absence of agreement.

Importantly no official Orders were received in Petrograd. There was no-one to give them, because there was no leader of Russia. (see G.D. Marie p 289). She also wrote that  "... anarchy reigns in Petrograd". She also confirmed that Nicholas abdicated in favour of Michael.

By these few examples surely it could be suggested that there really was anarchy however brief and however subtle....?

As soon as the abdication of Michael was official, the Soviet Deputy Order # 1 was issued. (p 294 in Education of a Princess).

[_Rodger_]

Michael never 'officially' abdicated.  He called for a free election to allow the Russian people to decide what type of government they wanted, but the words 'abdicate' or 'abdication' or any similar term were never used.