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

Was the October Revolution inevitable

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Was the October Revolution inevitable? By Linsey Misik The events leading up to the October revolution help give us insight into what the reasons for it were and why it was successful. However to understand whether or not the revolution was inevitable we need to focus on the influence of the political activists. Other key pressures on Russia were the cultural and social climates at the time which closely link to Alexander II reforms in the nineteenth century. Another important factor was Russia's domestic policies at the time and the economic failures; highlighted with the wars Russia had pursued with disastrous effects. This will provide us with an in depth knowledge of the time before the revolution involving many of the historian's viewpoints who have researched this time in Russian history. Other arguments involve the dichotomy of historical controversies that relate to this time period is the idea that Russia's new found economic growth before 1914 could have modernised industrial society without the bad affects of WWI or the opposition that states that the Tsar system was too inflexible and corrupt. The interesting and varied opinions to the build up of the revolution will give us an opportunity to take a closer look at this time. Tsar-Martyr Nicholas IIRussia's October Revolution occurred on October 25, 1917 (November 7, N.S.) ...read more.

Middle

This decision proved a big step into the beginning of the authoritarian reign of Lenin with the stark contrast of Martov's decorum in the background. This Lead Martov to the radical International Bolsheviks who were opposed to any coalition with the propertied classes, yet unwilling to accept the Bolshevik concept of the dictatorship of the working-class. Unfortunately the Russian Empire was not the country of great strength it was often portrayed as; in reality it was a difficult to govern. The country included a variety of different races, languages, religions and cultures which left Russia disunited. At this time it owned 800,000,000 square miles of land and covered two continents however to the ever-growing population this idea of a the great Russian empire was misleading. The census below shows that the country consisted of disproportionate amount peasant workers (82%) to other social classes, this equated to the lack of Russia's economical development. In such a vast country it was unable to maintain good communication in all its territories and the countries infrastructure was poor. Michael Lynch comment on the industry in Russia was that 'the sheer size of and her undeveloped roads and railways had proved an important limitation on industrial growth,' Ruling class (tsar, court and government) 0.5% Upper class (nobility, higher clergy, military officers) ...read more.

Conclusion

Comparative growth in national income 1894-1913 Italy 121% Austria-Hungary 79% France 52% Germany 58% Britain 70% European Russia 50% An interesting debate still rages regarding the Russian economy; if the war had no intervened would the economy have prevented revolution? An interesting debate, that's still ongoing however the Russian economist Alex Nove opinion is; 'If the growth rates characteristic if the period of the period 1890-1913 fir industry and agriculture were simply projected over the succeeding 50 years, no doubt citizens would be leading reasonable existence... however this assumes.....that there must be surely a limit to the game of what-might-of-been'. In conclusion we can see that the revolution was in fact pointing to the signs of revolution; the country was ruled in a rigid and out-of date with poor communication, backward farming methods, uneducated lower classes and poor foreign policy. The great reforms of De Witte were too late in the day to save Russia. The nail in the coffin had been the second Russian Congress of Soviets that undermined the Bolsheviks to create a multi-party and socialist democracy but instead facilitated the rise of Lenin's authoritarianism. Many historians views before the dissolution of the USSR was that Lenin inspired the working classes and produced a mass uprising. However when the archives were declassified we they showed that the coup d'�tat in October 1917 provided only a change of government and Russia still remained under a dictatorship therefore it is difficult to say whole-heartily whether or not the October revolution was inevitable. ...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. Marked by a teacher

    Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861?

    5 star(s)

    This leads on to the point that Alexander may have wanted to emancipate the serfs as he realised that the system of serfdom had outlived its usefulness in his society, and wanted to prevent further far sweeping changes which could arise if he ignored the situation.

  2. Why was Lenin able to seize power in October 1917?

    9,000 people died in they campaign and the Tsar was forced to chose a New Prime Minister. To help him with the tasks of the October Manifesto, Tsar chose an able tough man called Peter Stolypin to strengthen his authority and to restore laws and orders.

  1. Assess the strengths & weakness of Russia around 1855

    In the first half of the 1800s serf uprisings in the hundreds had occurred and serfs in great number had been running away from their lords. But in contrast to slavery in the United States virtually no one in Russia was defending serfdom ideologically.

  2. 'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid ...

    government Alexander II did not make significant progress in avoiding a revolution, his reforms angering the Slavophiles and encouraging revolutionaries that a revolution was possible. It seems the conclusion of events has to be that if Alexander had made no changes to the system when he came into power, serfdom,

  1. The Russian Revolution - 3 Essays

    As well as not having enough equipment to go around all the soldiers, they were also badly led. The Tsar took command of the armed forces in September 1915, which made little difference to the war because he was not a very good commander.

  2. How valid is the view that the reign of Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    access to wells, rivers and forests so that often local settlements had to pay to reach them. The gentry themselves, who Alexander assumed would be happy with a generous pay-off, also lost money - the decreased revenue they suffered from a reduction in their estates and no longer having the

  1. Explain why there was an Industrial Revolution

    Even though the British Empire and overseas trade brought several advantages some historians still are against this factor helping to cause the Industrial Revolution. This is because profits made from trade were sometimes spent on land and property instead of being invested in Britain's industry.

  2. How valid is the view that the reign of, Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    Corporal punishment was banned, and training regimes made more relaxed. Milyutin saw a link between the abolition of serfdom and Russia's new, more streamlined army. He saw them being conducive to each other. He once said: "Serfdom does not permit us to shorten the term of service."

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