...growing popularity and strength of the Bolsheviks as they played on these mistakes. With the Bolshevik under the leadership of Lenin, they managed to create the October Revolution. Figures like Leon Trotsky and the weaknesses of Kerensky were both significant factors that led to the Bolshevik Revolution. Lenin’s role in the revolution was vital but he would have not taken power were it not for the failures of the Provisional Government, which was the most crucial factor that caused the revolution and led the Bolsheviks to power. Word count: 104 One of the key element to the success of the Bolshevik revolution was Lenin’s orating and leadership skills, personality and his determination to take power. Lenin’s April theses where he spoke of ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ increased the popularity of the Bolshevik as it reached out to the peasants who made up most of the population. The April theses was effective because it highlighted the feelings and aspiration of the workers and soldiers. The Bolsheviks pacifist stance from the very start of the war and Lenins’ promise of ‘peace’ proved a popular idea and this gained them thousands of followers. With inflation causing prices, of the food that was available, to increase Lenin’s offer of food was an immense attraction. Lenin realised the importance of the peasants for support so he promised them land to get their support. The April theses offered what the Provisional Government would not and so the Bolsheviks gained supporters, which is why the...
Words: 2082 - Pages: 9
...How far do you agree that Lenin’s leadership was the main reason for why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in 1917. Lenin was a very significant figure during the Russian revolution, under his strong leadership and the advice of some of his advisors, Lenin helped the Bolsheviks come to power. However I would not agree that his leadership was the main reason to why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power as factors such as the weakness of the provisional government, the home front and most importantly Trotsky role all played a significant role to why the Bolsheviks were successful. Lenin’s leadership played a significant role to why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in 1917 due to his clear and persuading aims. Lenin was an influential figure in the eyes of the proletariat. Due to the April thesis clear aims resulted in that he was able to gain greater support and he succeeded in having 200,000 members. The vast amount of members meant that the Bolsheviks had greater support when it came to seizing power. The main aims of the April theses were, Peace, Land and Bread and power to the soviets. Many supported the idea of Peace, Land and bread as they were fed up with the affect the war was having on them and wanted to bring it to an end, people were also starving due to the war and therefore welcomed the idea of Peace, Land and bread. Lenin also promised the confiscation of landed estates from landowners and the aristocracy. The slogan all power to the soviets played...
Words: 1325 - Pages: 6
...How accurate is it to say that Lenin’s leadership was the most important reason for the Bolsheviks’ success in the revolution of October 1917? (20 Mark) It is accurate to say that Lenin’s leadership was one of the most important reasons for the Bolsheviks’ success in the revolution of October 1917, due to Lenin taking control over the Bolsheviks and beginning to make preparations for seizing power. The whole idea of the revolution only came about because of Lenin returning to the Bolsheviks. However, it cannot be ignored that there were other factors that contributed to the success of the October revolution such as the failings of the Bolsheviks political opponents. Lenin contributed to the Bolsheviks’ success in October 1917 mainly in three different ways. The first contribution Lenin had made in the success of the October Revolution was on the return from exile in April 1917 where he persuaded and took control over the Bolshevik party and made them adopt the idea of seizing power. This was a difficult task as many of the members of the Bolshevik party shared the Menshevik view which predicted that the overthrow of capitalism was far off. Lenin had to work hard to persuade the Bolshevik party to understand his interpretation. Lenin’s success was largely based on his force of personality, but it also owed something to the support he received from new entrants in the Bolshevik party. Secondly, Lenin raised the Bolsheviks’ political profile as he recognised that the Bolsheviks...
Words: 988 - Pages: 4
...The Bolshevik seize of power in October 1917 was undoubtedly a turning point for Russia’s political situation and a point that would set the tone for the future rulings. It can be easily argued that the Bolsheviks were only able to take over as a result of the long term weaknesses and failures of the Provisional Government. However, as with all events in history, the final seizure in October would not have been possible had it not been for the more recent, trigger causes. The roles of Lenin and Trotsky, during the later months of 1917, were key factors in allowing the takeover to happen; and the extremely poor decisions and military leadership executed by Kerensky strengthened the Bolsheviks position for revolution. Whilst these short term causes played a major role in October, it cannot be argued that without the weaknesses of the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks would not have been sitting in power by the end of 1917. The weakness of the Provisional Government was one the most important factors in the Bolshevik takeover in October 1917. After the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917, the Provisional Government, formed from some of the previous Dumas, was set up to govern Russia. The new government was weak and unstable from the start, mainly due to whom it was made up of. It was a coalition, if you could call it that, between the Liberals, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries; and thus the new government had no unity from the start. With each part...
Words: 2132 - Pages: 9
...To an extent it is valid to say that Lenin's skill and determination as leader of the Bolsheviks was the main reason for the overthrow of the Provisional government. Although, there are significant other factors that contributed to the downfall of the government, such as the weakness the government it in itself possessed, the misjudgment and mistakes it made, and other contributing factors, such as the influential role of Trotsky, which helped impact on the eventual overthrow of the government. Evidence suggests that one of the main reasons for the fall of the Provisional government, was the weaknesses it in itself possessed. For example, the dual authority government can be seen as a weakness because it was not an elected body, and came into being as a rebellious committee of the old duma, refusing to disband at the Tsar's order. This meant it consequently lacked legitimate authority as a result. It had no constitutional claim upon the loyalty of Russian people and no natural fund of good will to rely on, meaning it was judged entirely on how it dealt with the nations problems, making it vulnerable from the start. Its second major weakness was that its authority was limited by its unofficial partnership with the Petrograd Soviet. To begin with there was considerable co-operation between the two, with some people (e.g.- Kerensky) being members of both bodies. The soviet did not set out to be an alternative government, and regarded its role as supervisory, checking that the...
Words: 2202 - Pages: 9
...overthrowing the existing order; Tzardom, they were divided from one another. The Liberals, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks and the Social Revolutionaries had different political programmes. In 1905 each political party made its own struggles against Tzardom. Therefore, the Tsarist government could suppress these political parties one by one. Besides the division between the political parties, there were many disagreements within each of the political parties: the right-wing Liberals disagreed with the radical Liberals, the Mensheviks disagreed with the Bolsheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries disagreed with the radical Social Revolutionaries. The inside division within each party massively weakened the strength of its struggle against Tzardom. And therefore meant that the groups were easily little worry for the tsar. The chief driving force of the 1905 Revolution was the main population, the peasants. But this class were not properly led by the political parties to seize power. Both the Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries had wrong conceptions of the role they should take in the 1905 Revolution. They believed that the middle class revolution should take over the socialist revolution and that they should wait for the liberals to establish a middle class government in 1905. Thus they did not make use of the potential revolutionary strength of the masses to capture power from the Tzarist government as soon as the 1905 Revolution broke out. But...
Words: 460 - Pages: 2
... * Middle class discontented as their sons were dying at war * Large life cost why was there a Feb. rev in feb1917 * First WW put pressure on tsarist system * The weather was so bad so trains wouldn’t function and no import/export * Prices rose and rationing led to further discontent * Series of strikes * Famines and poverty getting worse * ARMY DESERTED THE TSAR WHERAS PRIOR TO THIS HE WAS SUPPORTED BY THEM I.E THROUGHOUT BLOODY SUNDAY RUSSO-JAPANESE * Tsarina Alexandra What were the successes and failures of the provisional government? * They were an unelected body and didn’t represent the people of Russia * THEY DID NOT END THE WAR * Peasants were looting properties of landlords * People wanted an end to food shortages * Did not change enough very similar to the tsar *...
Words: 1198 - Pages: 5
...How far do you agree that Kerensky’s mistakes were the main reasons for the collapse of the Provisional Government? The abdication of the Tsar on March 2nd 1917 meant that Russia was left in control of the governing body, which became known as the Provisional Government. This occurred as a consequence from the February Revolution, consisting of mass demonstration and outbreaks of violence, demanding the Tsar to step down. This left the provisional government, which consisted of mainly Kadets and Octobrists, despite them not having much support throughout Russia, as problem that the new government faced was that they did not represent everyone’s political view, due to the fact that neither the Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks who were quite popular within Russia, were represented by the Provisional Government. Also the Provisional Government never really had total control to govern to rule Russia, due to the Petrograd soviet. These issues were exploited by key events during the reign of the Provisional government as factors such as Kerensky’s mistakes, which the assertion gives along with aspects such as the return of Lenin, the June Offensive, having to share power with the Petrograd Soviet and the July Days. Alexander Kerensky played a great part in the collapse of the Provisional Government due to his actions after becoming Prime Minister in July 1917. Mass desertions from the Russian army caused by the failed June Offensive, lead to the replacement of Prince Lvov by Kerensky, right...
Words: 1358 - Pages: 6
...AS Level History Russia 1855 – 1917 Alternative F Revision Guide Contents 1. Alexander II 2. Alexander III 3. Nicholas II 4. Stability of the Tsarist Regime 1905 - 14 5. Political Opposition 6. February / March Revolution 1917 7. October Revolution 1917 Tsar Alexander II To what extent does Tsar Alexander II deserve to be viewed as the Tsar Liberator? Think BALANCE!! Alexander II 1855-81 ▪ Came to the throne during the Crimean War (1855) ▪ Initiated a wide range of reforms (social, economic, administrative and legal) ▪ Earned the title ‘Liberator’ for giving freedom to the peasants BUT did not wish to share political power ▪ Assassinated by the People’s Will in 1881 Answering the key question |Introduction |Use this chart to answer any question on Alex II | | |All questions (whether relating to ‘Liberator’ or not) will require BALANCE | | |Precision of knowledge – “Detail is King!” | | |Yes |No | |Emancipation |Emancipation Committees set up |Redemption Payments...
Words: 7115 - Pages: 29
...Between 1861 and 1917, Russian society had undergone many changes. It is safe to say that every aspect of that society had been some how modified. These changes led up to the Bolshevik revolution in November of 1917. Given the nature of Russian society, was the Bolshevik revolution unavoidable? Among the changes Russian society had undergone, one starts off the whole chain of events. This was the emancipation of the serfs, in 1861, by Czar Alexander. The emancipation freed 44 million peasants. The Czar knew that the only way to end the discontent of the serfs and to show that Russia too was a modern society would be to let them free. The Edict of Emancipation caused many problems these uneducated peasants. The land now assigned to them was smaller then the plots they were using as serfs. This was an average of 8 acres. There was also a forty-nine year period over which installments could be paid before the peasants were given full ownership of the land. In fact many peasants were still working for their landlords after the edict. Because of his efforts Alexander was nicknamed "the liberator". Despite giving the serfs their freedom, Alexander's actions cause more problems then they solved. After the unification of Germany between 1861 and 1891, which accelerated it's military and political power, Russia too felt it should industrialize. A man named Sergei Witte, who was Minister of Finance from 1892-1903, almost single-handedly pushed Russia into its industrialization. He...
Words: 1112 - Pages: 5
...The Bolshevik Revolution At the turn of the 20th century, Russia was a vast empire. The country spanned across the entire northern half of Asia, from the Pacific coast in the east, and into Western Europe. Tsar Nicholas II ruled the country as it had been ruled by his family for centuries before. The strict feudal traditions were upheld with brutality; Tsarist policies prolonged the agony of the lower classes and supported the opulence of the royal family. In the early 1900s, the poor social and economic conditions coincided with the spread and increased study of Karl Marx’s communist philosophy. The Russian people, determined to establish a new government, initiated a chain of events that climaxed with the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution transformed Eastern Europe and Asia and had a significant impact on the entire world throughout the twentieth century. The fallout of the Bolshevik Revolution still impacts Russia and the rest of the world today. There was no singular cause or event that sparked the Bolsheviks to take to arms in 1917, instead the action resulted from the culmination of a history of social, political, and economic issues. Prior to the Bolsheviks’ rise to power in October 1917, there were two Revolutions that set the stage for the Soviet takeover. The First was the revolution of 1905. This revolution resulted in Russia transitioning from a strict feudal system to a constitutional monarchy; the power of the Tsar was limited...
Words: 3331 - Pages: 14
...revolutionaries overthrew the Czars, which resulted in a state of anarchy and turmoil. The Bolshevik Party of Lenin masterminded the Bolshevik take-over of power in Russia in 1917, and was the architect and first head of the USSR. History, nonetheless, as history often does has opened up a series of questions, It is generally accepted that Leon Trotsky played a greater role in organising and executing the Bolshevik revolution. Even Joseph Stalin acknowledges his major rival’s role in the events in Pravda on the 10th November, 1918, “All practical work in connection with the organisation of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet...the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky...” This statement by Stalin confirms the role of Trotsky in the revolution, however Terry Brotherstone, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, argues that “The Bolshevik victory in the October Revolution would have been just as unthinkable and unrealisable without Trotsky as it would have been unthinkable and unrealisable without Lenin”. It has been suggested often that whilst Lenin was the visionary of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky was the practitioner. This is most evident in his contribution in the lead up to and during the Russian civil war, which led to the ultimate success of the Bolsheviks. Leon Trotsky had joined the Bolsheviks much later than other members of the party. During his time in London in the early...
Words: 3069 - Pages: 13
...PERSONALITES AND POWERBASE Lenin’s death created a power vacuum at the top of soviet politics. Whilst leading figures replaced him in various official capacties, no leader could replace his supremacy over party and government. This was the central problem facing the soviet communist party. There were five contenders for the rule of Russia. Stalin Members of the Soviet government called Stalin ‘the grey blur’, meaning that there was nothing outstanding or controversial about him. He had played a minor role in the October Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. However, his real gift was for administration, and due to his peasant upbringing he understood the way that many ordinary Russians thought and acted. He also had a reputation for loyalty to Lenin. Nonetheless, when Lenin became ill, Stalin started disobeying his orders. Lenin’s Testament criticised him for this, but, as the Testament was kept secret, Lenin’s final instruction that Stalin should be sacked from his position within the Party was not widely known. Trotsky Trotsky was the most heroic of the contenders. Together with Lenin, he had planned and led the October Revolution and had commanded the Red Army during the Civil War. He was extremely glamorous, and a gifted theorist and orator, who inspired the loyalty of his troops. Trotsky had a radical vision for the future of Russia, which appealed to young and idealistic members of the Party. Indeed, Lenin’s Testament praised Trotsky as ‘the most outstanding...
Words: 715 - Pages: 3
...After Lenin’s death, a power struggle ensued that resulted in a shift from collective leadership in the Soviet Union to Josef Stalin emerging and establishing his position as the individual leader of the state. To the majority of the Communist Party this was an improbable development as it was thought Trotsky would succeed Lenin. Trotsky had originally affirmed allegiance to the Mensheviks after the spilt of the social democrats in 1903, nevertheless the outbreak of revolution in 1917 witnessed Trotsky joining the Bolshevik party and playing a crucial part in the communist takeover that followed. He began his time in government as the foreign commissar and was principle negotiator in the peace terms with Germany; he then became war commissar and played a vital role in the preservation of the Bolshevik regime by leading the red army to victory against the whites in the civil war. It was down to these factors that Trotsky was seen as the evident heir of Lenin. As well as this Stalin had never posed any threat, Kamenev had described Stalin as ‘a small town politician… a man with no ideas or ambitions’ . However, Trotsky and other leading politicians such as Kamenev and Zinoviev underestimated Stalin’s abilities. Trotsky especially, felt secure as the next successor to Lenin and so when opportunities arose to eradicate Stalin from the party he made the mistake of not taking hold of them. For example, Lenin’s last testament called for the removal of Stalin however Trotsky failed to...
Words: 2646 - Pages: 11
...“Stalin’s position as General Secretary explains his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-1929” How far do you agree with this statement? In this essay I will discuss whether Stalin's position as General Secretary was the most important factor in his seize of power. Stalin's position as General Secretary was very important as it gave him control over the whole party machine. But there were also other factors that proved to be very important. This essay will attempt to assess the relative importance these factors. Stalin's position as General Secretary proved to be very important in his seize of power for many reasons. One reason for this is that it gave him the ability to control party membership which was extremely beneficial as it meant he could bring people that supported him into the party and also he could kick out those who did not agree with his ideology. Another reason is that it allowed him to undermine his rivals’ power bases meaning he could sway the opinions of others into supporting him over the other competitors in the running for power. However, there were many other factors that contributed to Stalin's seize of power. One example of this is that the Bolsheviks made many errors, both general and individual. An example of a general error is the underestimation of Stalin. This was beneficial as it allowed Stalin to make moves without anyone suspecting him of doing anything particularly damaging to their success. Another example is the failure to...
Words: 807 - Pages: 4
