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

How far was the transformation of the position of the Bolsheviks from February to December 1917 a result of Lenin's leadership?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far was the transformation of the position of the Bolsheviks from February to December 1917 a result of Lenin's leadership? In February, the position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was precarious. With Lenin out of the country and the Bolsheviks not even a part of the Soviet, they were very much on the fringe of politics. Membership was low and with the declaration of the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet, dual authority over Petrograd had been established. The Bolshevik party accepted this, (they thought it was part of a genuine revolution) but it was Lenin who would reject it and begin a process to destroy it, his ultimate aim being to replace it with his Bolshevik party, which happened in October. Historians such as Liberals and Soviets agree that the role of Lenin himself was of huge importance in transforming the position of the Bolsheviks, saying he was a skilful manipulator of situations. ...read more.

Middle

The lack of much needed reforms made these people turn to the soviets, and ultimately to the Bolsheviks. However, these new members didn't actually ensure a transfer of power to the workers, as in the chaos of all the new members, politicians managed to seize power in the soviet; therefore the workers were not being sufficiently represented. The Bolsheviks aimed their propaganda at these kind of desperate people, seemingly offering them a way out. Overall, Lenin had little control over this situation, but his skilful strategies discredited the Provisional Government and the party made substantial gains in the numbers of supporters. It has been suggested that the 'July Days' crisis shows the weaknesses of the Bolsheviks, and in contrast, the strength of the Provisional Government. While after the event Lenin claimed that the uprising actually stemmed from the Mensheviks and SRs, this is probably just to detract from the fact that they were associated with a failed uprising. ...read more.

Conclusion

Kerensky later acknowledged that the affair had been the 'prelude to the October Revolution', and from it Lenin could see how the Government was defenceless against military threat. In this way, Lenin's leadership appears to be a considerable factor in the changing fortunes of the party, as he was slowly undermining Kerensky by playing on his inability to stop the social unrest in Petrograd and profiting from it. Here, social factors are clearly a large issue, as well as the way Lenin was able to exploit the situation. This ties in with revisionist and liberal views, as both aspects are merged. Although great importance must be placed on the social situation that Lenin was in, so must the fact that Lenin was cleverly able to manipulate many situations, from which he and the party gained much support. Although revisionists tend to underestimate the amount of support for the Bolsheviks, they did actually profit from exposing the weaknesses of the Provisional Government and from the Kornilov affair. Therefore, the revisionist view must be accepted. ...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 Significance of Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923)

    He had achieved significant things for the Bolsheviks and was undoubtedly a real asset to them. He was the organiser, the rationaliser and ideological inspirer that the Whites crucially lacked. Without him the Bolsheviks would not have been in power, let alone have any chance of winning a Civil War.

  2. In the process of consolidating his position, Napoleons reforms, had by 1808, destroyed the ...

    Consequently, the needs of the children would not have been met - they should have had the right to a good education, but they were not entitled to this, this impacted on the amount of liberty and equality they possessed; especially the ordinary people, who Napoleon believed needed only a simple 'moral education' and basic literacy and numeracy.

  1. Did Kerensky hand over power to the Bolsheviks?

    Kerensky was an aspiring dictator; Kornilov could be a threat to Kerensky's power which is why he was so eager to dispose of him. Kerensky was not the only one suspicious however, Kornilov was become increasingly frustrated with Kerensky's failure to adopt his new policies, one day he even turned

  2. HOW DID WORLD WAR ONE CONTRIBUTE TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRISH POLITICS 1914-1918?

    Asquith's formation of a coalition government in order to remain in power comprised of conservatives opposed to Home Rule. Carson joined the cabinet, Redmond, however, refused. Redmond's refusal may have been viewed as a stance against the British; in the eyes of many nationalists it removed him and the IPP from direct involvement with negotiations.

  1. How effective were the Bolsheviks between 1903 and February 1917?

    Lenin developed a powerful revolutionary weapon by adapting Marxism to suit Russia, which had not developed enough to be ready for revolution based on the original Marxist theory. As a result of these adaptations, the Bolsheviks would not collaborate with the bourgeoisie, which further divided them from the Mensheviks who

  2. The Bolsheviks were able to seize power in October 1917 mainly because of the ...

    The Provisional government failed to call a Constituent Assemble and deal with land reform, their implementation was poorly handled and often ineffective.

  1. How far do you agree that WW1 was mainly responsible for the February Revolution ...

    the February Revolution because the government was not able to call on the army to suppress an inevitable uprising. Without the disastrous First World War that undermined the country?s leadership, the government would still have had the support of the army like in 1905.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    6. New laws passed against prostitution and homosexuality. However, it wasn?t all bad. 60% of undergraduates were women by 1940. Women struggled with a situation in which there were insufficient kindergartens for the children of working women. The already small proportion of educated women in party or high administrative posts declined even further in the 1930s.

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