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

How far do you agree that Lenins leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far do you agree that Lenin's leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power? The Bolsheviks were able to successfully seize power for many reasons. Firstly the weakness of the provisional government made it easy to take power, secondly Trotsky's careful planning made sure the take-over was executed with great efficiency and finally the return of Lenin did help to build support and encourage the Bolsheviks to seize power. The First main reason the Bolsheviks were able to seize power was the failure the Provisional Government brought on itself. It had failed miserably in solving Russia's problems. The government was unsuccessful in combating the problem of having two governments it simply undermined its own power by doing nothing to stop the Soviets, it continued to fight a war the country could not afford and that was not supported by its people and a war in which in the end Russia did badly in, plus there was a massive ...read more.

Middle

Kerensky had not only reiterated the weakness of the Provisional Government to the people but he had also freed many members of the opposing political party and armed them. This event also moved the Provisional Government more to the right meaning the Soviets moved further into the left wing. In moving further towards the left the soviet now, in Kerensky's opinion, was of little threat, he feared the right wing parties more. This meant Kerensky didn't act decisively to stop the Bolsheviks. Again these reasons that aided the Bolshevik success in seizing power had nothing to do with Lenin and so cannot be put down to his leadership. Another reason for Bolshevik success was that the Petrograd Garrison fled due to the fact they had had enough of fighting in the war and now disagreed with the Provisional Government. This meant that when the Bolsheviks and the Red Army stormed the winter palace there was no resistance they simply walked in and the few Cossacks and cadets simply left. ...read more.

Conclusion

Trotsky was the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and had worked on a brilliantly effective plan, with him in control of the takeover it was an almost effortless seizure of power. Also the members on the central committee who were wavering over whether or not to begin a revolution and overthrow the government were convinced now was the right time and that they had a sufficiently detailed enough plan to pull it off by Lenin, without the return of Lenin and his leading of the Bolsheviks these members may not have decided to act and the revolution may never have happened. Overall I think that although Lenin's return and his subsequent leadership did to some extent play a part in the success of the Bolshevik seizure of power it was not a key part in why they gained power. The provisional Government was already experiencing problems and because of this losing support, even if Lenin hadn't returned the government would have fallen and in my opinion this is the main reason the Bolsheviks were able to seize power. ...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 International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

This is a clearly structured response that shows good understanding of the key events that led to the October revolution. There are many counter arguments that need to be considered more though. 4 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 17/09/2013

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 International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. To what extent was Stalin to blame for the Berlin crisis 1948-9?

    designed to contain the spread of communism and even bring Soviet satellites to capitalism, Ryan's argument suggests some cominform states were "willing participants'' but "ultimately, Stalin pressured them into withdrawing''17 and there is further evidence to validate his argument as these countries were devastated following the war.

  2. How far was the USSR responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War?

    The speech, delivered in February 1946, revealed Stalin's declaration that capitalism and imperialism made war inevitable, a claim that in the US was interpreted as an allusion to a new war, thus creating hostility between the two superpowers. Yet, the first real crisis which crystallized the Cold War and defined

  1. Why did Mao Zedong introduce a second five year plan in 1958 and to ...

    The Agarian Reform Law of 1950 gave land to about 300 million peasants, About half of whom were able to farm their land by themselves. The rest, whose fields were too small or who did not own farming tools banded together in mutual-aid teams, sharing equipment and animals.

  2. To what extent did the foreign intervention influence the outcome of the Spanish Civil ...

    However, Zamora's reforms were not accepted and he was expelled and replace by Manuel Aza�a. Aza�a's government also had serious reforms and changes, which upset people in the army, in the church and especially the wealthy landlords. He put in practice the main measures of Article 26, which were that

  1. "To What Extent Were Gorbachev's Policies the Catalyst to the Fall of the USSR?"

    The other sources, mostly secondary, may be considered analytical as much as only informative. They bring about a scheme to help support the views of the main sources with facts from the Russo-American chronology. These sources include RFE/RL2 editorials et transmissions about the USSR; HistoryOrb analyses on the Perestroika; Editorials

  2. Rationality, Educated Opinion and Peace

    Is the public rational? Is war a rational choice? The political definition of rationality is the ability of the public to discern the options open to them, and to adopt the best option to achieve their prioritized goals. The Great War cast doubts as to whether public is necessarily aware

  1. To what extent was Collectivisation a success?

    Stalin's fear of resistance which could lead to the collapse of grain production made him resort to call a halt to Collectivisation, saying that they had become 'dizzy with success'. An end was called to the 'voluntary' principle, and this choice of abandoning collective farms was widely accepted and a

  2. Tsar downfall

    Although the war did seem to contribute to the Tsar's misfortunes in 1917, the main problems that occurred during the war were largely caused by the Tsar himself. He handled the problems caused by the war ineffectively, and made a number of bad decisions.

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