• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Did Kerensky hand over power to the Bolsheviks?

Extracts from this document...


"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'�tat 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) ...read more.


Kornilov was arrested later after more miscommunication and Kerensky handed arms to the Bolsheviks to stop his troops. The main failings of Kerensky were to arrest Kornilov, one of the few competent Generals who were aware of the Bolshevik threat as well as very popular. Give arms to the Bolsheviks, who at the time had support but no arms therefore this charitable offer from Kerensky handed them power. And finally to trust Lvov, which simply highlighted his total ineptitude and incompetence when handling political matters. The Kornilov threat simply highlighted the governments bad handing and instability. The final failing of Kerensky has to be his failure to appease the Bolsheviks, peasants and workers. Kerensky was hired as the successor of Prince Lvov due to his handling of the July days and his suppression of the Bolshevik agitated troops. Although when he came to power his oppression was non existence, scared of angering the Soviets (which were now becoming Bolshevik dominated) and the fact he didn't control the troops (as they were heavily influenced by the Bolsheviks and controlled by the Soviets) made it impossible for him to try and oppress the growing influence of Lenin. After the July Days the Bolsheviks were experiencing mass support, they were now controlling factories and squeezing out the Mensheviks and SR's. The Bolsheviks were becoming the alternative to the Bourgeoisie government, as I noted political polarisation was taking place and this was mirrored in the September Duma elections which saw 51% go to the Bolsheviks and 33% to the Kadets. Bolsheviks support was growing and the idea of a Bolshevik revolution was well known however Kerensky simply stood by and did nothing to stop them. ...read more.


This was not the first time the Bolsheviks had the chance to take power, personally I feel at the July days they could have walked into the Winter Palace unchallenged, so Kerensky wasn't the first leader to fail to stop Lenin. Kerensky was simply incapable of grasping the social situation of Russia, his troops were deserting, the peasants were uprising and the workers were striking, yet very little action was taken to suppress any of these groups. As Richard Abraham put it in his book "Alexander Kerensky: The First Love of the Revolution" Kerensky was in "isolation from real Russia". Kerensky's attitude was also something to be sceptical about, he was building himself off the image of Napoleon, I think posing as a despotic leader was bound to have repercussions after the downfall of the Tsar. When Kerensky came to power Russia was in massive problems, it would have taken a hero 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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. The downfall of the Romanov Dynasty

    up since 1915 exploded in to food riots and a wave of strikes in February 1917. The Kadets, middle class and liberal landowners, wanted Russia to have a parliament like England.

  2. The Bolshevik Consolidation of power 1917-21.

    * Peasants recruits were the most unreliable, deserting often. So the Bolsheviks concluded that the most dependable units came from the workers. * Workers units became, in practise, the elite corps within the Red army. * There were some who joined the Red army because they sincerely believed in the

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    Peasant ideology, insofar as it existed at all, held that nobody should own more land than was needed to support an adequate living, especially if one's neighbours were having difficulty getting by. Peasant self-interest demanded that this land be seized and redistributed at once, and so it was.

  2. The Bolshevik Consolidation of Power 1918-21.

    A number of Russian's national minorities, such as the Ukrainians and the Georgians, fought in the war, in order to establish independence. As in all civil wars, the disruption provided a covet for settling old scores., as it was not uncommon for villages or families to be divided against each other.

  1. Impact of the Russian revolution - Ideology matters.

    the various socialist doctrines-something that in general might be described as state capitalism, that is, the state and not private individuals perform the entrepreneurial duties of gathering land, labor, and capital for productive enterprise. Socialist rhetoric disguised this crucial essence.

  2. Why did 1917 end with Lenin in Power rather than Kerensky?

    It was still tainted with the Tsarist and Provisional Governments 'brush' inexplicable linked to the past. To the revolutionists it was too conservative, it continued to impose the structure of Autocracy that Russia had endured for hundreds of years. As Robert Service says "There was a widely-held assumption that the

  1. The enormous role that Trotsky played in the success of the Bolsheviks up until ...

    The Cheka proceeded to viciously murder the Tsar and his family. Trotsky later said that 'The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only to frighten, horrify and instil a sense of hopelessness in the enemy, but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was

  2. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    In this case, it would be removing the Jews from Aryan society and then taking it further with the Holocaust after proving to the German people that his believes are the truth, so to speak. Again, using the Jews as a scapegoat, stating they have ?spread all over the world?

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work