'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?

• A worldwide socialist revolution (he wanted every country to become Communist)
• An immediate end to the war
• An end to co-operation with the Provisional Government
• The Soviet to take power
• Land to be given to the peasants

Lenin was a charismatic character, and in my opinion had some of the traits that Hitler had.  Lenin was able to increase public awareness of the party, which resulted in an increase in membership.  In February 1917 the number of members in the party was about 10,000.  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.  

 

It has been reported that before the October revolution, Lenin went to his retreat in Finland and started writing plans to change and transform Russia.  

However, it can be said to a certain extent the source is not entirely true.  Most historians, such as S.A. Smith, D. Koenker, Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution (1981) and Graeme I. Gill, Peasants and Government in the Russian Revolution (1979), concentrate on the social forces that made the October Revolution and have focused on the part played by the masses.  However, they have not denied that Lenin had a part to play, but have stressed that this must be seen in context.  In my opinion, these interpretations are fairer than Footman’s explanation to the revolution.  This may be because the Cold War had begun to decline and their views were revised which previously had been very critical of both liberal and communist interpretations of the revolution.  They were starting to be aware of both sides of the argument.  This was due to the publication of the historian E.H. Carr’s The Bolshevik Revolution 1917 – 21 in 1956 which made an attempt to understand the ideological and political aspects of Bolshevism and Lenin.  

It also has been said that Lenin was the influence behind the revolution, however, it was Trotsky who organised the revolution.  

 This is because for most part of the revolution was not in Russia, and after he returned he mostly confined himself to Petrograd.

The failure of the Provisional Government also contributed to the success of the Revolution.  They were very weak, as there were arguments within the government itself, which weakened it further. The weaknesses were also caused by the underlying problem of the system of Dual Power with the Soviet.  They had tried to co-operate however; they disagreed over most issues within the country, for example, the land question. The government at this point was also unpopular due to the fact that they had continued with the war, and also caused another rift with the Soviet.  Also, as the Soviet was elected, this made the Provisional Government even more unpopular.  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.