• 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 important in bringing about the October revolution?

    In the end though, the uprising was suppressed and many Bolsheviks, including Trotsky were imprisoned. Again, Lenin left for overseas. The provisional government tried to win more support by resigning and placing Kerensky as the new prime minister of a new government, mainly made up of Mensheviks and social revolutionaries.

  1. Was the October revolution a popular uprising or a coup d(TM)tat?

    This view, although similar to the Revisionist view, is a lot more biased to the Bolshevik party, and depicts them almost as heroes.

  2. To what extent was Stalin's economic policy successful? In the 1920's the soviet economy ...

    It shows that Stalinisation had very unrealistic targets. "The Soviet Union enjoyed the "three good years" of 1934-36 and the achievements by 1937 were impressive." - Chris Corin , Terry Fiehn, Communist Russia Under Lenin and Stalin 2002 p185 The book this source is taken from is a Schools History Project Official Text.

  1. Explain why there was an Industrial Revolution

    They were difficult and expensive to build in hilly areas, and they were extremely slow. In the end, they were superseded by another new, revolutionary form of transport: the railways. The impact of the railways on the 19th century Britain was so great that the period of time was known as the "Railway Age".

  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

    Those who owned serfs defended that ownership merely as selfish interest. Public opinion overwhelmingly favoured emancipation many believing that freeing the serfs would help Russia advance economically to the level at least of Britain and France. Those opposed to emancipation were isolated among them the Tzar's wife and mother who

  2. Stalin and Lenin

    in these plans but it wasn't as successful as industrialization and this eventually caused a famine which killed 7 million people. Stalin claim that the Russian constitution is the fairest one in the world, everyone over 18 years old were allowed to vote every four for a national assembly called

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