Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseAfter the July Days, Alexander Kerensky was prime minister of a weak Provisional Government. Russia was still fighting Germany, the army was falling apart and many officers blamed the soldiers' committees and the soviets. In July, Kerensky chose General Lavr Kornilov as Supreme Commander of the army. Kornilov was a tough, outspoken soldier and the son of a Cossack peasant. He believed that only strict discipline could save the army and the country.
(Dates in this lesson are in the Russian calendar, which ran 13 days behind the one used in Western Europe.)
Key terms:
Kornilov wanted the death penalty, already used at the front, extended to soldiers behind the lines, military control of the railways and factories, and an end to the power of the soldiers' committees. The German capture of Riga on 21 August made him say that Russia had no time to lose.
At the end of August he ordered the Third Cavalry Corps under General Krymov to move towards Petrograd. He said it was to stop a Bolshevik rising and to protect the capital.
Historians still argue about his real aims. Some think he meant to overthrow the Government and rule himself. Others think he wanted to force Kerensky to hand over more power to the army, and expected to stay in the Government. What is clear is that he was ready to use soldiers against the capital's soviet and workers, and many people on the left saw that as a counter-revolution.
On 26 August a politician, Vladimir Lvov, carried messages between Kornilov and Kerensky. The messages were muddled. Kerensky decided that Kornilov was demanding all power for himself. On 27 August he sacked Kornilov and ordered him to hand over command. Kornilov refused. He said that Kerensky had set a trap, and he appealed to the Russian people to support him.
Kerensky now had a problem. The army officers were turning against him, so he needed help from the left. He asked the Petrograd Soviet to defend the capital. With his agreement, the Soviet's committee for defending the revolution armed the Red Guards and other workers to defend Petrograd, and jailed Bolsheviks were freed during and after the crisis. Kerensky had to rely on the very people his Government had arrested in July.
There was almost no fighting. Railway workers held up trains or sent them the wrong way, so Krymov's troops were stranded far from the capital. Telegraph workers slowed Kornilov's messages. Bolshevik and soviet agitators talked to the soldiers, many of whom had no wish to attack Petrograd. Krymov's troops stopped, and Krymov met Kerensky and then shot himself. Within a few days, Kornilov was arrested.
This is a Paper 2 Section A (b) question. You compare two sources only. You do not need your own knowledge. You must show where the sources agree and where they differ, then judge how far A supports B.
Source A: From a radio-telegram to the country by Alexander Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government, 27 August 1917 (translated).
On August 26 General Kornilov sent to me member of the State Duma Vladimir L'vov with a demand for the surrender by the Provisional Government of all civil and military power, so that he may form ... a new government to administer the country. ... I am taking all necessary measures to protect the liberty and order of the country.
Source B: From a reply by General Lavr Kornilov to Kerensky's telegram, 27 August 1917 (translated).
The Minister-President's telegram No. 4163 in its entire first part is a lie throughout: it was not I who sent the Member of the State Duma, Vladimir L'vov, to the Provisional Government, but he came to me as the envoy of the Minister-President. ... A great provocation has thus taken place which jeopardizes the fate of the motherland.
Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the events of 26 and 27 August 1917? Explain your answer. [8 marks]
Source A supports Source B on some points. Both agree that Vladimir Lvov, a Duma member, passed between Kornilov and Kerensky on 26 August, because A says Kornilov 'sent to me ... Vladimir L'vov' and B says Lvov 'came to me as the envoy'. Both also treat the situation as a threat to the country. A says Kerensky is acting 'to protect the liberty and order of the country', while B says a 'great provocation' 'jeopardizes the fate of the motherland'.
However, the sources differ on who started the contact. A says Kornilov sent Lvov to Kerensky, but B says it was 'not I who sent' him and that he was Kerensky's 'envoy'. They also differ on what happened. A says Kornilov made 'a demand for the surrender' of 'all civil and military power', but B calls the first part of Kerensky's telegram 'a lie' and says there was 'a great provocation'.
Overall, Source A supports Source B only a little. They agree that Lvov carried a message and that the country faces a threat, but they directly contradict each other on who sent him and on what Kornilov wanted, which is the main point at issue.
What lifts this to the top level: it cross-refers short quotations from both sources for agreement and for difference, and it ends with a judgement on how far A supports B.
Do not judge which man was telling the truth. This question only asks how far A supports B. Write one paragraph on agreement, one on difference, and a one-sentence verdict, quoting from both sources each time.