• 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. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    The enthusiasm of Trotsky and the Mezhraionsty for their new found alliance with the Bolsheviks was due entirely to their agreement on the fundamentals of policy. Certainly it was not due to any personal friendship between Lenin and Trotsky; previously the two had been on very poor terms.

  2. Trotsky - Succession, Revolutionary Success, Civil War Hero, Death, Failure and End

    of 'Socialism in One Country'76, he appeared to be anti-Russian in his foreign interests, a view which was not much helped by his Menshevik background and reputation as a Jewish intellectual. Trotsky had therefore failed to act in order to prevent Stalin achieving supreme power in Russia, and it was

  1. 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

  2. Assess the role of the Bolsheviks for the decline and fall of the Romanov ...

    The ripples of the infamous "Bloody Sunday" massacre on January 9 1905 left the nation in shock, triggering a wave of massive demonstrations and strikes throughout the empire. A wave of assassinations occurred and in June the crew of the battleship Potemkin mutinied.

  1. Describe the problems that faced the Bolsheviks in their first year in government and ...

    As a consequence of the Treaty, many Russians felt betrayed and greatly opposed this defeatist exit to the war. These were mainly the army Generals who had fought so hard for the good of their country, and the supporters of the Tsar who had abdicated the previous year, who wanted

  2. The downfall of the Romanov Dynasty

    to the cities, meaning food shortages and inflation, all of which created anger and frustration in Petrograd.

  1. what was the situation in russia when bolsheviks came into power

    Lenin was already facing many burdens, so was obviously frustrated with the distraction of his own party. Where groups were being formed within the party, like the 'workers opposition' formed by Alexander Shlyapknikov and Alexandra Kollontai, who criticised Trotsky's plan to make the trade unions agencies of the state, creating arguments within the party at the end of 1920.

  2. 1798 Irish Rebellion notes

    area of southern Ulster where, almost uniquely, Catholics and Protestants both constituted significant elements within the population. 4. Here efforts by the gentry in Armagh to mobilize poorer Protestants by giving them weapons intermeshed with economic discontent among local weavers and sectarian disputes over land to produce an explosion of widespread unrest.

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