Was the collapse of the provisional government inevitable

Was the collapse of the provisional government inevitable?

By definition, a provisional government is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a previous administration or regime. A provisional government holds power until elections can be held or a permanent government can otherwise be established. Provisional governments often occur as the result of a or in wartime when an occupied nation or territory has been liberated or when a government has been deposed by an invading army.

In this case as a result of revolution and with abdication of Tsar in Feb 1917, the provisional government consisting mainly of liberals from the old Duma was set up. Until a new elected government- the constituent assembly was set up, they were to keep the country running. Alexander Kerensky, a member of the social revolutionaries became the Prime Minister after Lvov resigned.

Yes, I agree that the collapse of the provisional government was inevitable to a larger extent than to it being evitable

The provisional government also had one major disadvantage: its leaders - especially Kerensky - were associated with the middle class. They were not seen as having anything in common with the working class, therefore the people could not believe that they could represent them and had their best interests at heart.

They had refused to give land to the poor peasants in the rural areas. This seemed to confirm the point above - that the Provisional Government did not understand the desires of the poor. To survive, the peasants needed land and this was refused by Kerensky. Whenever they tried to implement a policy, it would never satisfy all the people then. By August 1917, Kerensky faced many problems. One problem was that the economic situation in the cities deteoriated as the food shortages caused by uncooperative peasants, thus increasing the prices of food and goods. As a solution, the provisional government could have decided to call for land reforms and when they did, they seized land in the country side and when the landlords refused to obey, they were killed and houses burnt down. Although by calling land reforms, the provisional government could appease some of the masses of peasants; it displeased the landlords and liberals (which included themselves) as they had to share their land now and could not earn as much money as before. On one hand, the peasants were made happier but the landlords who were the people who could support the government was unhappy and thus this could lead to the collapse of the government and if they had not called for a land reform, the peasants would continue being uncooperative and leave everyone hungry. Even though they had a solution, the provisional government will never be able to satisfy all in this case, thus leading them to a collapse as not everyone would want to support it.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The biggest mistake which lead to the collapse of the provisional government was the decision taken by them to keep Russia in . This was a curious decision as the war was hated by the Russian people who had suffered greatly as a result of it. The army also disintegrated as they were sent to fight the war, and because of the lack of army in the cities, the cities had general lawlessness and there was a widespread of violence. The Kadets and Octobrists did not alter their views on the war once they came to control the Provisional Government. On March 20, Prince Lvov publicly announced that the new government would “sacredly observe the alliances which bind us to other powers" and would “unswervingly carry out the agreements entered into by the Allies," which smoothed the way for Allied recognition of the new government. Despite Lvov’s statement, Russia’s workers, soldiers, and peasants overwhelmingly rejected the annexationist, anti-democratic, and imperialist elements of the war. At this time, the masses were for the war that it waged in self-defence against German aggression, but was against the war if it involved taking over other lands or oppressing other peoples.

The irony part is that the revolution, made partly based on dissatisfaction with the war, led to the election of socialist partied that tried to turn political power over to Russia’s landlords and capitalists who continued the war as if no revolution had happened. In fact, the latter initially believed that the revolution might restore the faith of the masses in the war effort and lead the troops to fight hard for their newly won “freedom."

Far from making the war more efficient, the February revolution ushered in a period of intense class conflict which fatally undermined the army’s discipline and cohesiveness. The army, made up of predominantly peasant conscripts, increasingly came into conflict with the officer corps, drawn heavily from the families of landlords and nobles. The struggle in the countryside between the peasants and landlords infected the army, as both officers and soldiers heard news from home about forcible land redistribution, and even more directly when the military was called on to repress the peasant movement in the countryside.

When they ‘gave up’ on the war, not only did the Russians feel sad, they felt that they had ‘lost face’ as well. This caused the people not be so trustful with the provisional government and doubt their ability to lead well, since the war was a big failure. When the provisional government wanted to stabilize it by broadening its social base and live on the moderate socialists for support, they refused and this dogged refusal to end the war was in spite of strong evidence of growing support in the country for the Bolshevik party and its slogans, “land, bread, and peace”.

The collapse of the provisional government by the Bolshevik-led Soviets on November 7, 1917. The provisional not ending Russia’s participation in the First World War, especially given that the bulk of the country became more hostile to the war as time went by and that the war effort was politically, militarily, and economically unsustainable was not understandable and caused people to be doubtful and feel that the government cannot lead them and this contributed quite a lot on the collapse. So if perhaps the provisional government had not gone ahead with the war, the people might not have been so unhappy when they lost and thus the collapse could have been evitable in this case.

While the Kadets cheered for “war until the end,” the Russian army had all but disintegrated and the Bolshevik party thus had time to prepare to overthrow the provisional government and seize power. The collapse could have been avoided if the provisional government had paid more attention to the Bolsheviks and not let them have the chance to prepare and seize power.

wanted the government to deal much more harshly with the communists. He basically felt that the Provisional Government was too soft and that it should go. He was supported by many other army officers. Kornilov demanded that all socialists and communists should be arrested - Kerensky refused to do this as he did not want to be seen to be weak. If anybody was going to order arrests it was Kerensky and not anybody else.

Kornilov then gathered troops together and marched on Petrograd. They were faced with those soldiers who had deserted the army and 20,000 Red Guards. This was a new force created by the workers of Petrograd to defend the city. Kornilov did not stand a chance and the attempted take over failed but while it may appear that Kerensky came out of this well, the real winners were the communists. The Red Guards were credited with saving the city and the workers who formed the Red Guards were sympathetic to the communists. In fact, many were communists. Kerensky began to lose a lot of support and his power base was rapidly disappearing and thus is one of the reasons the provisional government collapsed. However, if Kerensky had been more alert and gain more support and power before all this happened, the provisional government would not have such a threat and collapsed, thus it being evitable if only he had paid more attention.

Even though most of the reasons why the provisional government collapse could have been solved if the leaders had been more observant and alerted earlier but if they were not so, as proven in the case here, the collapse of the provisional government was inevitable as they could not always satisfy everyone even if they had though through, thus inevitable, nor have everyone’s support because of that. If they lost support through a wrong move (which could have been avoided) or they could have tried to have a strong relationship with the people, thus not losing support under any circumstances, the collapse would have been evitable although it would have taken a lot of speculation and planning in front of time, which was quite impossible so I think that the collapse of the provisional government is inevitable to a larger extent than it being evitable. A provisional government holds power until elections can be held or a permanent government can otherwise be established so it will have to ‘retire’ sooner or later, thus showing its inevitable in this case that it has to ‘collapse’ no matter what happens.

Done by

Anthea (2006)