The Liberal school of thought would focus on the workings of the government and highlight their weaknesses as a reason for the Bolshevik takeover. These Western writers at the time of the Cold War would have many reasons for this interpretation of events. Firstly, they were writing in a pre glasnost age where documents were still highly censored and with the Communist state still dominant in Russia it was easy to find documents that purported the idea of a weak and incompetent government unwilling to listen to the people. Secondly, they would be unwilling to highlight the strengths of a party and a leadership that had begun the descent into Communism in Russia – a system so villified by the West. They saw Lenin and the Bolsheviks as the forerunner to Communism and so would only wish to highlight the negatives of a system, not heap praise on their personnel and policies.
Prince Lvov and his cabinet of ministers definitely did not increase their levels of popularity by the policies they decided to follow. This government, like the Tsar before them, did little to address the problems and issues that were fundamental to the Russian people. Refusal to legitimise the peasant takeover of land, a continuation of fighting with the Allies in WWI, refusing to grant autonomy to people like the Ukrainians and with no measures being taken to improve the economy or introduce social reform meant that the government appeared no better than previous groups, including the Tsar that went before them. As a result, people continued to show discontent through desertions, striking and looking to other political groups, such as the Bolsheviks who seemed to offer more.
With Lenin’s return in April and the publication of his Thesis, including the two slogans of ‘Peace, Land, Bread’ and ‘All Power to the Soviets’, it appeared that the Bolsheviks could accommodate a huge range of support in Russia. Hungry city workers, frustrated peasants and absconding soldiers from the frontline all felt the party were directly appealing to them and promising to solve these huge issues that the Provisional government had left untouched. The Bolsheviks were the only party that promised an immediate end to fighting and peasant land seizures to be legally recognised. These policies certainly increased the level of support that the party had and throughout the year the numbers choosing to openly back them in the Petrograd Soviet grew. Other Socialist groups who had been willing to co-operate with the government, such as the Mensheviks and the SR’s, suffered as a result. Party members chose to join the Bolsheviks with the most famous example being Trotsky who joined the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks after April 1917
The traditional Soviet view would definitely agree that the Bolshevik strengths forced them into power. They would focus on the tide of support given to the party due to the fact that they were the only group who could placate them. They would argue that the leadership of the party was also significant and the talents of Lenin allowed him to harness his small group of professional revolutionaries and take power in the name of the soviets. Lenin would be seen as an ideological genius, adapting traditional Marxism to fit the situation in Russia. He would be described as the inspirational leader who stuck to his plans despite opposition from Zinoviev and Kamenev and his decision would be proved to be correct with his ascension to power. Such a view would be typical of the time and place where this was written. Soviet views written at the time when the Communists ruled ensured censorship and criticism of the government was impossible. Stalin continued this policy in the pre glasnost era, as he wanted to ensure that he was seen as the natural heir to Lenin after his death and further emphasised these positive traits.
Although one strength of the Bolsheviks was definitely the skill of Lenin, other figures, such as Trotsky, were also key in their success. Trotsky’s role would be emphasised by revisionist historians who, writing in a post glasnost age, would have access to previously censored material. As mentioned, Soviet views would focus mainly on Lenin, but others should be seen as significant. Trotsky was the practical organiser during the seizure of power and his role leading the MRC enabled telegraph offices and railways to be under Bolshevik control. As a ‘true Leninist’ he was unwilling to boast about his importance following October. Similarly, during Stalin’s time in office Trotsky would have been left in the background, as he had been a leadership contender with Stalin after Lenin’s death, so it was only after the fall of Communism that his key role would be shown. It is also during the revisionist post glasnost age that the Libertarian view has emerged. With access to more regional documents they would argue that it was the people who forced the revolution and it was people on the ground who forced the change rather that a professional group, such as the Bolsheviks. Libertarians would state that discontent was regularly shown by strikes and that soviets were becoming more and more radicalised. These historians would argue that this force of change would have inevitably lead to change, with or without the Bolsheviks.
