• 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)

    Moscow was the centre of the rail network and telegraph system and meant whoever controlled the city could control the distribution of supplies and food, and move troops quickly throughout Russia as well of the communication of information. In contrast the White armies were scattered over large areas and had difficulties in supplying the troops.

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

    Just in his beliefs, Napoleon had different standards and expectations for different people, and not based on their abilities like in meritocracy, but in their wealth and social class - much like how education was like under the Ancien R�gime.

  1. Did Kerensky hand over power to the Bolsheviks?

    Within the capital Kerensky's political ideologies were again being tested as the chasm between the Left and Right was growing so he called a State Conference in Moscow. This conference was an embarrassing failure, not only did the two political wings fail to reconcile but also Kornilov arrived and mesmerised the right wing.

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

    derives that "failure to harness the enthusiasm of the Volunteers not only damaged Irish recruitment but also helped drive the young men into the hands of militant nationalists."9 The transformation of British politics in May 1915 would again influence Irish Politics.

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

    When women?s sections of the party were set up, it was not for them to be involved in policy making, it was simply for them to explain policy to other women. (Zhenotdel was the women?s section of the central committee was not popular and closed in 1930).

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

    personal responsibility for military operations (thinking that the operations under his command would be a success). Nicholas II saw himself as a strong military leader however in reality he was painfully unqualified to lead a vast army. The military failures and shortage of equipment displayed, especially to the Russian soldiers, how poor the Tsars leadership skills were.

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