• 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 been the founder of the Party, directing it from the beginning and he knew more about organising revolutions than others at the time. Before the Civil War he had managed to convince the Bolsheviks that they could seize power in 1917, been the brains behind the October Revolution,

  2. Did Kerensky hand over power to the Bolsheviks?

    admit that the idea of the Provisional Government was a failure in itself, Russia wasn't a democracy. Russia was not a free thinking, liberal country but one that had been reigned by terror and religion, the concept of the intelligentsia leading alienated the masses.

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

    Pauric Travers remarks that "the German connection was peripheral to the main preparations of the rising".11 The Rising, from the Unionist perspective, perceived all nationalists as disloyal; particularly with the introduction of conscription in Ireland having been strongly opposed by Redmond.

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

    This is an attempt to cement the Revolution in the minds of everyone and to prolong the life of its legacy, which would be upholding it. In comparison, the Educational Reform offered an adequate education only to an elite group - the children of notables.

  1. How far was the transformation of Bolshevik position between February and October 1917 a ...

    He wanted to shut down the soviets and replace the Provisional Government with military rule. Kornilov failed because of the armed resistance of the Petrograd workers led by the Bolsheviks. This showed the weakness of the government and many saw the Bolsheviks as the way to a stable government.

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

    Lenin?s supporters remained loyal and so the Key positions in Petrograd were maintained by Red Guards under the direction of the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) and coordinated by Trotsky. Power stations, police stations and the rail way networks in Petrograd were all in the hands of the Bolsheviks, and with

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

    It was not efficient enough. Some of the written propaganda did not reach those illiterate peasants. 2. People were not brainwashed into accepting the party line. There were individuals who might conform physically, but not mentally. How much power did Stalin really have? It?s possible to argue that Stalin could not run everything personally and could not know everything that happened.

  2. 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.

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