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

Using these four passages and your own knowledge, explain how and why historians disagree about the role that Lenin played in the foundation and development of communist government in Russia.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Compare Passage A and B on the importance of Lenin in the establishment of Russian communism. In passage A, Lenin is portrayed as the sole savior of the proletariat and the champion of communism established in Russia. The passage corroborates its claim by underlining the change or adaptation Lenin had done to the original Marxist theory. The historian in this passage extols Lenin to have rendered the Marxist ideas as "a proposition that corresponded to the new historical conditions." It posits that if the change implemented by Lenin had not occurred, Marxist ideas would be outdated and unable to be adapted to result in a successful establishment of Russian communism. Lenin's acumen is highly valued by the historian as the Bolshevik leader who had "the courage to replace one of the old propositions of Marxism." Ultimately, Lenin is characterized by the savior of the proletariat from the enemies. On the other hand, passage B does consider that "Lenin had the greatest but no the sole influence" in establishment of Russian communism. It directly refutes the portrayal of Lenin as the father of Russian communism presented in passage A. In fact, Robert Service claims that "Lenin did not invent most of the attitudes of Russian revolutionary." The historian states that Lenin was one of the many groups that advocated similar causes. ...read more.

Middle

Lenin, indeed, never was part of the Soviets. Perhaps Lenin does deserve to be acknowledged as having the "greatest influence" through his leadership and propaganda that antagonized the provisional government and won the support of the people, but other contemporaries such as Trotsky played almost an equal role in capsizing the Provisional Government to give birth to the communist order (Source B). On the other hand, some historians portray Lenin as "the natural leader of the party" but a leader that "had to reaffirm his credentials repeatedly." These historians provide instances where Lenin's views were not accepted by the other members of the Bolshevik parties. In reality many factions existed within the party where "members could cultivate their own constituencies." Other contemporary leaders of the party include Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Tomsky and Stalin. A historical evidence that could authenticate that Lenin's views were not always accepted. When Lenin wrote his April Thesis in 1917, the Bolshevik party refused to publish it in its own newspapers as the members thought that these ideas were too radical. They were afraid of the possible backlashes by publishing Lenin's programs. Another historical instance where Lenin's program caused polemic inside his communist party was his issue of New Economic Policy in 1921. Almost all the members of the party rejected this policy as "capitalist." ...read more.

Conclusion

and Lenin. Also, the translation of this document into English could be a problem, depending on the level of accuracy of the translation. On the other hand, Source B, written by Robert Service, a British historian, is a secondary source, published in 1997. Source B is a passage from Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution (ed. Acton, Chernaiev and Rosenberg). The book was written with the purpose to provide and emphasize that a strong revolutionary tradition existed in Russia before Lenin came upon the scene to students. This source is particularly valuable in that it is written by a non-Russian historian, thus, adding objectivity to the interpretations put forth since the historian is not writing his native history. In addition, it has many editors who revised this source, and therefore is more convincing since there are four historians corroborating the document. Also, the source is quite recent compared to Source A which was published in 1938. Nonetheless, this source also has limitations. The fact that the Source B is a secondary source is a weakness. In addition, the source possibly does not give insights to the Russian perspective as much detailed or more as a source that would be written by a Russian historian. Moreover, Source B seems to be anti-Lenin and give little credit to Lenin for his role in establishing Communism in Russia; thus there might be some subjectivity in this document. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. How important was Stalin compared to Lenin in creating the Soviet Union?

    This source is likely to be bias because it is Stalin making the claims, and also Stalin who has imposed the five year plans, as such it is likely to be propaganda. However, the claim is confirmed by official archive figures and the diagram (source D), therefore making it less likely to be falsified.

  2. How important was Lenin compared to Stalin in creating the Soviet Union?

    in producing more occurred meaning more and more production was increasing through to the first and second five year plans. Overall I Believe Stalin was more influential in this case because although Lenin tried to redeem himself with the NEP some production was still lower than pre 1914 therefore not enough was happening quickly enough.

  1. Stalin Sources Questions

    In his story, he is trying to project the conception that he has arrived to emancipate the people of Russia from its former state. At the time of him writing this source this may have been very viable. However this source should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is conpricious and so cannot be taken very earnestly.

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

    This was a major change for the Russians as during the Tsar's ruling period they mainly worked the land, not owned it. This impact was a long-term one as the peasants continued owning their land during Communism. However, the relative freedom they had over it, was reduced when Stalin introduced Collectivisation, and before that when Lenin initiated War Communism.

  1. Tsarist Rule in the years 1856-1917 and Communist Rule from the death of Lenin ...

    This had resulted in an increasingly hostile Russian peasantry to the tsars, who were often victim to a vicious circle of repression and reform. Decreasing central power and control by the tsars is shown in this peasant unrest, whereby much of the intelligentsia were turning to political groups in order to further their cause.

  2. Assess the Impact Stalin Had On Russia and Its People Stalin came to ...

    This in turn, led to there being a huge famine in 1932. This famine led to the death of 11 million people because of starvation. The state of Russia in 1932 was so bad that, as a last resort the people cut up dead corpses for food and killed their own families for food.

  1. "Stalin was personally responsible for the Purges in Russia in the 1930s". Agree or ...

    Another reason is that Stalin wanted total control and rapid industrialisation of USSR, the Gulags used during the purges offered free labourers to help boost the economy whilst simultaneously ridding Stalin of opposition. Stalin knew these Gulags existed as the NKVD brought reports concerning them to his attention.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    The sources were also written nine years apart. Whilst source L refers to Stalin as having an 'evil side', source M claims that Stalin was simply 'corrupted by absolute power' into 'a murderous tyrant'.

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