The article surveys contemporary Israeli historiography of the 1917 revolutions, focusing mainly on studies that appeared in Hebrew, but also considering some works by Israeli historians that were published in Russian and English. The article examines the research problems addressed by Israeli historians, including such questions as the inevitability vs. unpredictability of the February and October revolutions; the conflicting character of the Russian revolutionary cultures; elements of modern utopianism in the revolutionary ideology; and individual and communal survival during the revolutionary era. Special attention is paid to the representation of the 1917 revolutions in Jewish history, including biographies of historical figures who were active in both the Russian revolutionary and the Jewish national movement in Palestine. The article claims that the studies of Israeli historians are characterized by a rich documentary basis and approach the 1917 revolution as a profound cultural, and not only political and social, event.
Michael Confino“Russiyah: shnat 1917 ve-ha-derekh eleiha,”Zmanimno. 27–28 (Spring 1988): 18–25. In a later anthology of his works in Hebrew the title of this article was reformulated as “Mahapekhot 1917 ve-ha-derekh eleihen” (“The Revolutions of 1917 and the Path toward Them”) in Michael Confino Mi-Sankt-Petersburg le-Leningrad: Masot al darkah ha-historit shel Russiyah (From St. Petersburg to Leningrad: Essays in Russian History) (Tel Aviv 1993) 408–23.
ShtakserThe Making of Jewish Revolutionaries in the Pale of Settlement2–3; Inna Shtakser “Shtei tarbuiot mahapkhaniiot be-Russiyah terem 1917” (“Two Conflicting Revolutionary Cultures in Russia on the Eve of 1917”) Zmanim (Spring 2017) forthcoming.
LaskovTrumpeldor152. According to Laskov the Pervyi svodnyi evreiskii otriad was established at the base of the Petrograd self-defense unit on December 7 1917 and dissolved on February 24 1918. Ibid. 153–54.
ShaltielPinhas Rutenberg38. See also William G. Rosenberg “Russian Liberals and the Bolshevik Coup” The Journal of Modern History 3 (1968): 328–47. Rosenberg writes: “As Kerensky left Petrograd for Gatchina he granted Nikolai Kishkin his Kadet Minister of Welfare ‘extraordinary powers for restoring order’ directing all military and civil authorities in the capital subordinated to him” (330).