A little more than a year has passed since the beginning of the war, when the supreme power in Russia lost almost all the levers of control. One of the signs of the crisis in power was the incessant changes in the government, the notorious ministerial leapfrog. And Nicholas II, as many believed then, having assumed the supreme command, simply fled to the front from personal and state problems.
Of course, the Duma did not see their own guilt in the ministerial leapfrog that was thundering all over Russia. The famous demand for a "trusted ministry" is nothing more than the logical conclusion of the parliamentary drift away from the imperial power. Yes, from the very first days of the war, a lot of miscalculations were discovered associated with the bureaucratization of management, and even with elementary thoughtlessness. Just one example: even the sanitary services, which were personally supervised by women from the august family, were clearly not ready for hostilities.
Here is what M. V. Rodzianko: (MV Rodzianko. The collapse of the empire, Kharkov, "Interbook", 1990, p. 98).
Meanwhile, the personnel assigned for the emerging ambulance trains - six doctors and thirty sisters of mercy - were inactive here. Only after Rodzianko threatened the local medical authorities with a military tribunal, all the wounded were bandaged in 2-3 days and taken to the rear.
It is known that the emperor and his family did their best to help the front. Before the war, Nicholas II took out all his gold from France and spent it on the Red Cross infirmaries, the female half of the royal family was on duty in hospitals. Following the example of the emperor's family, thousands of sisters of mercy went to the front line … But it was not possible to achieve a clear organization of the sanitary case, and first of all it concerned the supply of medicines, bandages and the prompt dispatch of the victims to the rear.
However, as the course of history has shown, parliamentarians were ready to use almost every such kind of miscalculation, every mistake, first of all, to undermine the central government. And even the very convincing victories of Brusilov and Yudenich in 1916 in the Duma were able to present to the general public as a suitable informational occasion for criticizing the tsarist government. After all, it was it that “was unable to help in the development of success and failed to take advantage of the fruits of victories” (Rech, November 19, 1916).
As is known, the summer and autumn of 1915 turned out to be especially difficult for Russia. The terrible defeats at the front, the loss of Galicia, Poland, the surrender of Belarus and most of the Baltic states caused an acute internal political crisis. The supreme power, largely under pressure from the Duma, expressed a vote of no confidence in a number of ministers in key positions. On June 5 (18), Minister of Internal Affairs N. Maklakov was dismissed by the emperor.
The next day, he was followed by Minister of War V. Sukhomlinov, whom the deputies accused of high treason. He was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and a commission of inquiry was created from among the Duma members to investigate the "Sukhomlinov case." The response to the ministerial leapfrog was the creation by the Duma of that very "Responsible Ministry", which by the beginning of 1917 had almost completely controlled the Russian economy.
We should not forget about the very peculiar diplomatic work of the State Duma, when many parliamentarians earned points in the West primarily by unbridled criticism of the Russian central government. In April-June 1916, the Russian parliamentary delegation paid an official visit to Great Britain, France and other countries.
It was dominated by oppositionists, such as P. Milyukov or A. Shingarev. The Duma members sought to establish contacts with Western parliamentarians and enlist the support of the government and public circles of these countries in the context of the growing confrontation between the authorities and opposition forces in Russia.
I must say that the intended goal has been achieved. The British lords declared "a great brotherhood of parliamentarians" and decided, together with the Russian delegation, to create a permanently functioning inter-parliamentary allied group. Russian Duma members could turn to her in the event of an acute conflict with the supreme power.
The oppositionists stayed abroad for four months. It is curious that there was an increased interest in Russian parliamentarians. Thus, P. Milyukov was received by the kings of Sweden, Norway, French President Francois Poincaré, British and French prime ministers Asquith and Briand, met with representatives of the Rothschild and Morgan banks. Many of those who met Milyukov saw in him the leader of the future "modern Russia".
Towards the end of the war, the desire of some representatives of the palace circles for a separate peace with Germany increased. The deputies considered this to be nothing less than treason to the Motherland. In a speech on November 1, 1916, delivered from the rostrum of the Fifth Session, Miliukov, at that time not yet the leader of Russia, but only the leader of the Cadets, addressing the government, shouted his famous: "What is this: stupidity or treason?"
Emphasizing the inability of the government to govern the country and the army, the deputies demanded that the chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Germanophile B. V. Sturmer, exposing the "Rasputin clique" influential at the imperial court. Sturmer's resignation is considered almost the main victory of the Duma in the struggle against tsarism. The parliamentary drift away from power has already been completed - there is a direct confrontation ahead.
It should be noted that by the time of this direct confrontation, there were no hints of a large-scale economic crisis in Russia. In February 17, there was, perhaps, only one distinct sign of crisis - serious shortages of bread in two capitals. The real collapse of the economy with hyperinflation, with a lost harvest and idle enterprises by the summer will be arranged for the country by those who in the spring snatched power from the tsar and his entourage.
Once again convinced of the uncertainty and weakness of the supreme power, on February 27, 1917, the most active "Duma members", mainly the Cadets and Octobrists, gather for a so-called "private conference" and create a Provisional Committee of the State Duma, which from February 27 to March 2, is essentially a self-proclaimed government.
In the "Appeal of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma members on the seizure of power", signed on February 27 by its chairman Mikhail Rodzianko, it was said: public order. Aware of the full responsibility of a decision they agree with, the Committee expresses confidence that the population and the army will help it in the difficult task of creating a new government that meets the wishes of the population and can enjoy its confidence. " ("State Duma, 1906-1917, stenographic reports", M., 1995, vol. 4, p. 350).
Meanwhile, Guchkov and Shulgin, not without the support of the commanders-in-chief of all the fronts and personally the chief of the imperial staff, MV Alekseev, actually beat out the abdication from the confused “Colonel Romanov”. However, this is a separate topic, still very controversial, but the very fact of the participation of Duma members in the whole story with renunciation is too indicative.
Is it any wonder that then the "committee members" more actively than all other politicians and public figures participated in the formation of the Provisional Government. Some of them became its members. Let us recall their names. They are M. V. Rodzianko, P. N. Milyukov, N. V. Nekrasov, S. I. Shidlovsky, A. I. Konovalov, V. A. Rzhevsky, V. V. Shulgin, A. F. Kerensky, N. S. Chkheidze, A. I. Shingarev, I. V. Godnev, I. M. Skobelev, I. N. Efremov. (Ibid, p. 12.)
On October 6, 1917, the Russian Duma during the First World War was officially dissolved by the Provisional Government in connection with the appointment of elections to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly.
Quite a lot has been said and written about the significance of the State Duma of the IV convocation. Some researchers believe that if during the Great War the Duma, the government and the emperor trusted each other, and did not oppose, and acted together, and not separately, Russia could well have taken a different path.
But be that as it may, the significance of the IV convocation of the State Duma for modern parliamentarism is quite great. The election of the legislative body, a special electoral law, the division of deputies into factions, the development of legislative initiatives, the representation of the masses in the legislative branch of power - all this and much more was given to modern parliamentarians by the Russian Duma of the great wartime.
