• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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. Did Stalin betray the Russian Revolution?

    Lenin was not the faultless figure his supporters make him out to be. He did not just 'ditch common decency'2, he was a cruel man who would not tolerate dissent; his attack on 'factionalism' to stop animosity in the party was hypocritical considering that he was responsible for the Russian

  2. How important was Lenin to the success of the October 1917 Revolution?

    or hiding from the provisional government (in August and September in Finland after an uprising of workers). Although he was very influential during the time he was actually in the country, it is inevitable that he had less of an impact on the people than from 1918 to 1924 because he was simply not a physical presence in their lives.

  1. 'In the context of the period 1715-1815 to what extent were economic factors the ...

    was such change in French society during the eighteenth century that government became unsustainable. The r�gime was founded in very much a feudal, agricultural society, but with the rapid growth of the bourgeoisie in the Third Estate, French society no longer fitted the system by which it was governed.

  2. Historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov have made the interpretation that Lenin was a ...

    Overall, the centralisation of power does not suggest that Lenin was a dictator, this is because it was a pragmatic response to the chaos created by the Civil War, and also Lenin had lost control over the Politburo due to his ill health, towards the end of his time in power the Politburo is regarded to have become increasingly dictatorial.

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    Wartime Russia was dependent upon the railroads for most troop movements and for food supplies to the two capitals. Vikzhel used this tremendous dependency as a lever by which to advance its members' interests. In economic matters, the railwaymen were concerned with improving or at least maintaining their standard of living.

  2. Russia 1905-1941 'Explain how the unpopularity of the Provisional Government contributed to the Bolshevik ...

    These proved to be powerful in attracting support. Lenin promised to end all of Russia's sufferings. This turned four fifths of Russia's population into potential Bolsheviks supporters. The Provisional Government was working towards setting up a new constitution in Russia.

  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. Consider the following causes of the October 1917 Russian Revolution:

    This attracted the working class even more than the Provisional government as Kerensky did not do enough for the Russian people. The First World War was a terrible blow to Russia.

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