The Bolsheviks and the Tragedy of the October Revolution Essay

The Bolshevik October Revolution brought Vladimir Lenin to power. Lenin’s vow to end the war and open negotiations with the Germans provoked the Allies and led to the detachment of a military excursion to oppose the newly established government and aid rebels who had begun a civil war to oust the Bolsheviks.

Lenin was able to consolidate Bolshevik rule in Russia by combining popular policies and repression: To what extent do you agree with this statement.

From the initial seizure of power in 1917 until 1924, the Bolsheviks were confronted with a series of crises that threatened their ability to control and govern in Russia. The response and resolutions to these crises included Initial Reforms, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Civil War, Red terror, War Communism and the NEP. Under the leadership of Lenin, the execution of these responses were made possible and the Bolsheviks were able to maintain and expand their power. The Civil War however was the direct consequence of the Bolshevik’s actions as they tried to maintain their grasp on power. The victory in the Civil War was extremely pivotal for the Bolshevik consolidation of power as it brought control and power but more importantly it eliminated

Even after the Red Army’s victory in the Civil War, the policy of War Communism was maintained. As a short-term measure the policy produced the results Lenin wanted but severity increased Bolshevik unpopularity resulting in a number of minor outbreaks of resistance during the 1920s. But the Kronstadt Rising of 1921 proved to be highly disturbing to Lenin as he described it as the ‘lightening flash that illuminated the true reality of things’.

The Russian revolution was a monumental change for Russia they went from a government of ordocrasy to communism, with evidence it will show that this truly was a change Russia needed. Yet many argue that the death and outcome was not what the people had imagined when agreeing to communism.

The October 1917 Revolution is undoubtedly a momentous and extremely important event in Russia’s history, one that ousted the centuries-old Tsardom that ruled over the empire, in favour of the radical communist movement in the form of the Bolsheviks, headed by one Vladimir Iliych Lenin. However, did this sudden move from autocracy to a supposedly more progressive democracy actually bring about the modernisation of Russia industrially, agriculturally and culturally, or was it simply a rebranding of a totalitarian state that would continue to oppress the

His objective was not to win mass support, but to create a party capable of seizing power when political circumstances permitted. After the successful October coup in 1917, he was even more determined not to jeopardise the Bolshevik's newly-won power by allowing elections to dictate the pace of revolutionary change. The November election, therefore presented him with a problem; the Bolshevik party had won barely a quarter of the seats. Results of the Constituent Assembly: November 1917 Votes

Leon Trotsky was the chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. The organization was that, under Lenin’s direction, that shown the overthrow of the state which is called or known “The October Revolution”

The revolution was an event that was constructed on a small scale of people that were made up of the Bolshevik party, for overturning the Provisional government into the Soviet Union. The revolution was a voluntarist revolution, as it explored the idea of individual agencies and the concept that the cause of an event is based on the actions of those participating themselves. For instance, in the October revolution, the uprising of the political change was due to the action of Lenin and the Bolshevik party. Without the participation of the party and the leadership of Lenin, the revolution would not have been executed in such magnitude. The October revolution is a voluntarist revolution for the following reasons, first, the leadership from Lenin, proved to be more progressive, compared to the traditional leaders at that time. Lenin instructed the affairs of the revolution in public, after writing the April These a speech that criticized the Provisional government and promoted that the Russian government falls under the Soviet Union. Lenin’s charismatic traits are essentially the reason behind the large amount of support that the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union received, a famous line from the April These: “All Power to the Soviets”, was used in propaganda during the time of the revolution, it was a phrase that changed the course of

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.

Figes stating that “The masses were...largely passive in their demands and actions; the Bolsheviks successfully manipulated and exploited this...” . These views could largely be due to the ‘History from Above’ standpoint of Liberal historians that did much of the post-Union analysis at the tail end of the Cold War. This forms many of our traditional views of the nature of The Revolution.

The Soviet revolution succeeded because all five factors of a successful revolution were present simultaneously. The mass frustration factor makes or break the revolutionary movement. In this case the growth of frustration was present among most of the Russians. Russians were not satisfied with the inequality of opportunities to fulfill

99 years has passed since the 1917 October Revolution - a time of chaos and uncertainty, an event that would shape the world for decades to come. In the midst of the “fog of revolution”, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World navigates through this tumultuous time. Reed was an American journalist and socialist, coming to Russia on an assignment from a socialist magazine, The Masses - he was a man deeply involved with the socialist movement, and thus, with the revolution. As the historian A. J. P. Taylor puts it, “This was his revolution, not an obscure event in a foreign country.” Thus, his first-hand account, written in 1919, provides a “slice of intensified history”, attempting to capture the spirit of the revolution, rather than providing a dry text on it - sometimes forsaking historical accuracy, but genuinely attempting to be a fair account, despite its bias.

The February and October revolutions that arose in Russia in 1917 reveals how power can corrupt a fragile system. Prior to these revolutions, Russia was under the reign of Czar Nicholas II, a leader, who like future leaders betrayed and inflicted harm to his loyal supporters. Karl Marx first sparked ideas of revolutions and communism, communism believes in a society where everything is equal and done according to abilities and needs. The February revolution on February 23 was the start of corruption in Russia, “Supported by huge crowds of striking industrial workers, the protesters clashed with police but refused to leave the streets” (History.com Staff 2009). The revolution resulted in the ousting of Czar Nicholas, the rise of the Bolsheviks