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

Why did 1917 end with Lenin in Power rather than Kerensky?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Rob Williams Why did 1917 end with Lenin in Power rather than Kerensky? There is a popular myth, brought about mainly by Russian communist propaganda that suggests Russia was saved from a tyrannical reign by one man, Vladimir IIyich Lenin. His name has become (rightfully) synonymous the Russian Revolution, and the traditional view, in Russia at least, had been that Lenin was the catalyst behind the socialist revolution. On the other hand Alexander Kerensky's name has gone down in history as the failed pretender, the conservative revolutionary who failed to take advantage of the abdication of the Tsar and the scope it created for social and political change in Russia. The reality is obviously different to this, Lenin although dynamic and fundamental to the Bolshevik cause did not create the revolution himself. Similarly Kerensky was an able politician, one who would probably have, in times less volatile than this, an excellent, forward-looking premier. How much was the Revolution inevitable therefore? And how much influence did Lenin and Kerensky have over the events? Kerensky, when he came to power, initially was hailed as a saviour. One who would lead Russia from the brink of Civil War and unite the factions of the Soviet and the members of the (former) ...read more.

Middle

This was the so called 'Kornilov affair', once General Kornilov had begun to march his division towards St. Petersburg, Kerensky was left with out ' a leg to stand on' , and his only viable alternative to stop a military coup was to turn to the Bolsheviks for there support. In doing so he destroyed the only pillar supporting the derelict Provisional Government, the army. By choosing the Bolsheviks over the national force he almost gave the Bolsheviks carte-blanche to come to power whenever they wished, and although no conflict actually took place it certainly enhanced the cause of Bolsheviks, and put them in prime position to take control over the country. This is obviously a simplification of the facts, many other factors were involved in the downfall of the Provisional Government (such as the Summer Offensive), but to answer my first question, was the Revolution inevitable? This would suggest that it the downfall of the Provisional Government, unless Kerensky had acted remarkably astutely, and had extraordinary luck, was inevitable. What is does not suggest is that the acquisition of power by the Bolsheviks was inevitable, they were certainly were in the 'running' to take power, and the Kornilov affair put them into a good position. ...read more.

Conclusion

This could have, if Kerensky had more power, been fatal for the Bolsheviks and Lenin. Kerensky's major mistake (though it is debatable whether it affected the outcome in the long run) was to launch a summer offensive, the Galician offensive, which badly backfired and lead to the Kornilov affair. In conclusion therefore, on first viewing it would seem that the Bolshevik revolution led by Lenin was inevitable, yet I believe this is a misconception. The Provisional Government was in all essence doomed, yet it was not inevitable that the Bolsheviks would come to power, rather it was the drive and genius (as well as luck) of Lenin that pushed his peers in the Bolshevik party to rebel successfully. Historians will always debate the exact significance of Lenin in the Russian revolution, whether he was the catalyst for revolution or simply took advantage of the situation. For what it is worth I believe that Lenin saw his chance for power, for radical change, and his great conquest was to successful take his chance and secure it for the future, leading Russia from the turmoil it had been in since the beginning of the turn of the century to stability. It was something Kerensky failed to do, and is why Lenin was in power in 1917, and not Kerensky. ...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.

    This is, admittedly, an extremely hypothetical proposition. but it is not impossible. More concretely, the same sort of rerouting might well have taken place with such more conventional (and far more important) sources of support as individual donations of money and of labour.

  2. The Significance of Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923)

    Lenin fled to Finland and many Bolsheviks were arrested. At this point it did not seem possible that they would ever rule over Russia. From the point of view of political legitimacy, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were already in a severe disadvantage in the Soviet because they had to compete

  1. The Russian Revolution of October 1917 was potentially the most politically formative event of ...

    One, arguably such a profound effect that historians like Friedrich Meinecke accuse Bismarck's policy within Germany and towards other nations as inevitably creating the means for the disastrous two world wars; T. Morris and D. Murphy describe in "Europe 1870-1991" that "If he was indeed such so great and successful

  2. During his lifetime, Lenin made many important decisions and policies which affected every citizen ...

    The peasants were delighted that they would be given the opportunity to own their land. Until 1861 most of the majority of peasants had been serfs, owned by their masters. In 1861 they had been freed and were allocated a share of land which they could buy with money loaned by the Government.

  1. Did Kerensky hand over power to the Bolsheviks?

    the two agreed that a summer offensive was needed. Brusilov was a very democratic idealistic general which was unusual as he had worked under the Tsar, he wasn't liked amongst other generals but Kerensky appreciated his optimism. Pressure from France and Britain was mounting on the Provisional government to attack

  2. Outline the distinctive features of the major political groups vying for power in Russia ...

    The most powerful soviets existed in cities such as Moscow and Petrograd. The soviets sprang up across Russia and were the main vehicle by which the Bolsheviks were able to gain power, as I shall argue under the next section, Why the Bolsheviks?.

  1. The 1917 Revolution.

    There had been no general uprising in the country and the army in the field was still under effective discipline. But the President of the Duma was seized with panic at the lawless behaviour of the Petrograd garrison, among whom republican sentiments were now being expressed, and persuaded the Grand Duke to abdicate as well.

  2. Why did the Tsar lose power in 1917?

    1905 revolution and Stolypin, who managed to mix both reform and repression in the period 1906-1911. If it wasn?t for Witte the Tsar may have lost power in 1905 and if it wasn?t for Stolypin the revolution would have probably come significantly before 1917.

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