"Kerensky handed power to the Bolsheviks" By October 1917 the Winter Palace of St Petersburg was overthrown by the Bolshevik party of Russia. Historians have deliberated for years on why this event occurred, one viewpoint taken is it was the fault of the detested Alexander Kerensky, prime-minister of Russia. Accusations that Kerensky handed power to the Bolsheviks are not unfounded, he conducted some disastrous policies, but was this Kerensky's fault, or was he being pressured by the unruly monarchists and rightists of Russia, did fear of a bloody cout d?état force him into passing measures such as the restoration of the death penalty? Was Kerensky's failure inevitable after the miserable spells of Lvov and Milyukov as leaders of the Provisional government? It is too easy to state that the revolution in Russia was one man's fault, despite Kerensky's perpetual mistakes there were a lot of other factors, such as the role of Trotsky and Lenin that must be taken into account. An indelible failure of Alexander Kerensky was his refusal to bring Russia out of the war. Kerensky had been hired as Lvov successor due to his belligerent and aggressive nature against the Bolsheviks so his continuation of the war was not unexpected (especially coming from the position Minister of War). However Kerensky was quite arrogant in thinking that a war that had brought down the Romanov dynasty of over 300 years and saw the dismissal of Milyukov and Guchov (after they embarrassingly promised to carry on with the war effort after telling the people they would not) would not hinder his leadership. The burden of the war on the people was devastating as resources were being sent to the front also troops at the rear were becoming increasingly frustrat... ... middle of paper ... ...ro to solve them, the war was straining all their resources, the workers were in constant rebellion and the army were no longer under the Provisional Government?s control, also the polarisation of political Russia was worrying. Kerensky came to be a leader because he was a bridge between the right and left, but that bridge burned and Kerensky was left alone with no support. His handling of the Kornilov affair was his biggest downfall, personally I think he should have never appointed Kornilov as Command in Chief, he was reactionary and had a past record of disregarding rules, Brusilov was a better option because of his democratic appeal. When Kornilov came into the picture the left support of Kerensky disappeared as well as the right, at this moment the Provisional Government was over. Kerensky didn?t give the Bolsheviks power but made it exceedingly easy for them.
During the 19th century, Russia was experiencing a series of changes with its entire nation and society overall. The government was trying to adapt themselves to them at the same time. It was not an easy time period for Russia whatsoever. Vladimir Lenin helped change this.
The Seizure of Power by the Bolsheviks in 1917. How did the Bolsheviks seize power of the Russian Empire in 1917? They were able to do this as a result of taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Through such decisions as disbanding the army and siding with the majority. the peasants, through such promises as land, food, equality and peace.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
lt of a variety of factors and reasons but the far-reaching effects of the war were to have devastating results in both social and economic quarters. Moreover, the war on help increase the opposition to the government and led to their downfall in October 1917. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World (1919) [2] Maxim Gorky, letter to his son (April, 1917) [3] E.H. Wilcox was very impressed with Kerensky and praised him in his book, Russia's Ruin (1919) [4] Morgan Philips Price, My Three Revolutions (1969) [5] Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams [6] Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams [7] Leon Trotsky, statement made to the Petrograd Soviet (24th October, 1917)
... food making it into the cities and towns and the little food that was already there was now overly expensive due to inflation. There was trouble in the countryside, peasants had started demanding land in order to grow their own food to survive. The people in Russia were fed up with how things were going and were ready for a revolution.
so a treaty would be a minor set back if Germany lost the war to
Trotsky impact on his time after the revolution began when he was instated as Commissar of Foreign affairs in the Bolshevik party. It was his duty to implement the peace decree, essential for the Bolshevik’s to consolidate their power. However, Trotsky had adopted the policy, ‘no peace no war’, in relation to the peace negotiations with Germany. This led to more punitive conditions after his initial refusal to sign the decree. This had a significant impact for Russia at the time as it saw the loss of large amounts of territory including Latvia, Estonia and the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks faced resistance to the conditions of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk due to Trotsky’s actions, which had a meaningful, although negative, impact on the times as it led to the outbreak of the Civil war. However, Trotsky continued to have a meaningful impact on his time during the civil war as he was appointed. This had an impact as he transformed the Red Militia into an effective army re-appointing Tsarist officers to provide training and organisation, re-introducing conscription, salutes and ranks within the army. Trotsky had transformed the militia of 300 000 in 1918 into an effective army of 5 million in 1920. This army was used to swiftly combat the revolt at Kronstadt naval base, ending the civil war. This suggests Trotsky’s leadership allowed for Bolshevik victory which eliminated internal oppositions allowing the consolidation of Bolshevik power. This had a very meaningful impact on the time as it allowed for the continuation of the first socialist state in the world. Therefore, Trotsky’s contribution as commissar of foreign affairs, and commissar of war to a large extent made a meaningful impact on his
A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was going to set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer in the theories and ideas of Karl Marx.
Perhaps the prime catalyst was Russian involvement in WW-I. Russia was unequipped for battle against a sophisticated, determined professional army (Kaiserine Germany) backed by a large, modern, industrial economy. Yet, despite disaster after disaster, the Great Autocrat, Tsar Nicholas II, this arrogant, benighted and "divinely anointed" ruler was both intractable and sufficiently obtuse as to not recognize the unfolding debacle. A few concessions were made and then recanted. Thus, the stage was set. Kerensky's successor government was limited and ineffectual in dealing with soldier and peasant demands and, fatally engaged with General Kornilov to maintain power. By dint of iron willpower and absolute adherence to a carefully defined program, Lenin succeeded in undermining the Provisional Government. He was masterfully aided by the Petersburg Soviet under the brilliant and supremely capable Trotsky. Smith capably reviews all this and much more, yet keeps the story "on
It could be argued that this increasing power for the single leader drawn from his party was due to the need for fast, decisive and unquestioned leadership of the type needed in battle. After all, Russia was portrayed by the Soviet propaganda machine as being at war with its own industrial backwardness as workers were urged to industrial fronts'. If the period of the 1930s is considered, it was a time of crisis. The building tension due to the rise of Nazi Germany making European foreign politics a risky place to navigate, the economic onslaught at home in Russia and the economic depression in the rest of the world making the times harsh. This change then could be argued as being beneficial to the USSR as only a single individual can provide the strong leadership needed, amongst a large group of individuals disputes would hinder the decision making process.
The resignation of Nicholas II March 1917, in union with the organization of a temporary government in Russia built on western values of constitutional moderation, and the capture of control by the Bolsheviks in October is the political crucial opinions of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The actions of that historic year must also be viewed more broadly, however: as aburst of social strains associated with quick development; as a disaster of political modernization, in relations of the tensions sited on old-fashioned traditions by the burdens of Westernization; and as a social disruption in the widest sense, concerning a massive, unprompted expropriation of upper class land by fuming peasants, the devastation of outmoded social patterns and morals, and the scuffle for a new, democratic society.
The accumulation of these factors centred on Lenin's leadership helped stamp Bolshevik power across the Soviet Union. Lenin’s pragmatic leadership was the most considerable factor in helping to fortify Bolshevik power. His willingness to take power in October/November 1917 and the successes of the move, through his right-hand man, Trotsky, was critical as it helped give him unquestioned authority within the party despite members of the Central Committee i.e. Zinoviev and Kamenev suggested industrialisation needed to occur first. This highlighted Lenin’s communist ideology, which was essential to the Bolsheviks maintaining power. Following the failure of the Provisional Government, Lenin recognised that it was the Bolshevik’s priority to legitimise their government.
...at lacked experience and depth. As a result, the once successful Communist army was being slowly depleted and therefore damaged the spirits of the former Bolsheviks and the Communist Party.
Over the next few years, Russia went through a traumatic time of civil war and turmoil. The Bolsheviks’ Red Army fought the white army of farmers, etc. against Lenin and his ways. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won and began to wean Russia of non-conforming parties eventually banning all non-communist as well as removing an assembly elected shortly after the Bolshevik’s gain of power. Lenin’s strict government, however, was about to get a lot stricter with his death in 1924.
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.