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

'Without Lenin there would have been no revolution' - David Footman, an academic British historian specialising in Russian history - The Russian Revolution (1962) - How valid is this interpretation of Footman's interpretation of the Russian Revolution?

Extracts from this document...


Revolution in Russia, Civil War and the rule of Stalin, (1917 - 41) Interpretation Essay 'Without Lenin there would have been no revolution'. David Footman, an academic British historian specialising in Russian history. The Russian Revolution (1962). How valid is this interpretation of Footman's interpretation of the Russian Revolution? The interpretation written by David Footman suggests that if Lenin hadn't been involved there would have been no revolution. However, there have been other interpretations by other historians such as S.A. Smith, who wrote Red Petrograd: Revolution in the Factories, 1917 - 18, (1983). This interpretation suggests that Lenin had been an important factor in the revolution, however, there had been other influences, an example being, the part played by the masses. Also, another interpretation is that the revolution occurred because of the failure of the Provisional Government, to meet the radical demands of the people, and therefore this had made it easier for the Bolsheviks to seize power. However, we have to question the source value. Footman may have used views and sources from other historians before the 1960s. However, there are many limitations of these views. An example, are many western writers, such as Footman tended to stress the role of a determined and ruthless Bolshevik party and of particular individuals, such as Lenin or Trotsky. ...read more.


During eight months this number increased by about 15,000. This transformed the party into a mass workers' party. The main tool that Lenin and the Bolshevik party used was propaganda and one of their main slogans was 'Peace, Bread and Land' This slogan demonstrated the way in which the Bolsheviks were able to combine the demands of the workers, soldiers and peasants to maximise their appeal. He argued that the Bolsheviks were to transfer power to the workers. This was reaffirmation of Lenin's basic belief that only the Bolshevik Party represented the forces of proletarian revolution. Above all Lenin was responsible for the timing of the revolution. He realised that July was too early to seize power, however, by September he felt that the timing was finally right to be able to take power 'from the gutter' as Lenin later stated. Lenin had tremendous prestige within the Bolshevik party had a great gift for combining theory and practice. Trotsky described him as the 'greatest engine-driver of the revolution.' This quote suggests that Lenin was behind the revolution, also suggested by Footman. Lenin's instance on a small elite organisation actually helped the Bolsheviks as his supporters were loyal and therefore secrecy was maintained. ...read more.


They were also successful as no other parties challenged the Bolsheviks and also no other party could do what they did. It could be said that Lenin did not devise the Bolshevik policies but their supporters, as Lenin responded to their demands. Their actions influenced him to take a more radical approach in 1917 and to make a decision in October that the time was right for a second revolution In my opinion, Lenin was a major factor in the revolution, which resulted in the Bolshevik seizure of power. I believe this because he was the main influence behind all the strategies and who wanted to overthrow the Provisional Government. If Lenin had not devised the parties' new policies, would the Bolsheviks have taken power? Also Lenin was the person to raise public awareness of the party, and managed to increase the membership from 10,000 to 25,000 in a space of 8 months. However, there are other factors involved in the revolution, for example, the part played by the masses was important as without their support the Bolsheviks could not have taken power, because before 1917 they were a relatively small party. Also, Lenin was not in Russia for most of 1917, and when he did return he confined himself to Petrograd. If it wasn't for the unpopularity of the Provisional Government there might have been no revolution. Rhiann Johns ...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. Russia 1905-1941 'Explain how the unpopularity of the Provisional Government contributed to the Bolshevik ...

    The Provisional Government was on the brink of losing all support to the Bolsheviks. Karl Marx the idealist in whom Marxism evolved from believed in three different forms of society in which Russian society would be based upon. The first was the feudal system which was prominent in Russian society.

  2. The 1917 Revolution.

    gaps due to enormous casualties; - To maintain supplies of food and essential commodities to the civilian populations in spite of the diversion of industry and transport for war purposes; - To organize an efficient production of munitions to sustain the fighting fronts.

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

    At this time a democratic workers assembly was also formed known as the Petrograd Worker's Soviet, as happened during the 1905 revolution. The Provisional Government accepted the reformation of this revolutionary power largely because its fragility and lack of official authority gave it no choice.

  2. How important was Lenin in bringing about the Russian Revolution of October 1917

    the army were peasants.Another thing which the provisional government did to help the Bolsheviks revolution was giving the Bolsheviks weapons. This was yet another mistake by Kerensky when he paniced because his appointment of general Kornilov as head of the army backfired when Kornilov ordered troops to march on Petrograd.

  1. FRench revolution

    The king could not make laws on his own; he had to consult his council of ministers and advisors in order to pass a law. As the king was only answerable to by God, he then had to portray that he was strong and dominant person Louis XVI was not a strong figure but in fact rather weak.

  2. How important was Lenin in bringing about the Bolshevik revolution of November 1917?

    One by Lenin stating that the Provincial government had been overthrown, and one from the Petrograd Soviet, stating that they considered that the Second Congress had not taken place. The Provincial government was ordered to surrender at 6:30pm on the 7th of November.

  1. Assess the impact that Lenin had on Russia and the Russian people.

    This again was to support the long term impacts that Lenin wanted, such as the survival of a communist Russia and an end to the monarchy. Also this would set a precedent for future leaders. For example, Stalin used the same harsh methods when dealing with opponents.

  2. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    with their approach to meeting his agenda in order to obtain respect and acknowledgement by their Furher. Even though the killing of those known as undesirables had been well under way long before the Wannsee protocol. The conference could still arguably be noticed as the start of the Holocaust as it made the killing of innocents an official policy.

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