The Russian Revolution 1917

GCSE Coursework: The Russian Revolution 1917

Joseph Fitzpatrick

History – Mr. Vere

Explain Rasputin’s Contribution to the collapse of Tsarism

It has been argued by many historians that Grigori Rasputin played a vital role in the fall from power of the Tsar and his family, and therefore also played an important role in the complete collapse of Tsarism in Russia, and the later rise of communism. He had a lot of involvement with the Russian royal family, and it is often disputed whether or not he wanted the Russian government to fall, and also whether or not the role he played in the fall was all-important. Although there is significant evidence which portrays Rasputin as an “evil” figure, causing destruction in his wake, most of the evidence suggests that in this situation he was actually quite innocent, guilty of nothing other than mildly extravagant debauchery.

Rasputin came from a very religious, somewhat superstitious Siberian background. He was brought up in a way that assured he would believe in the divinity of the family of the Tsar. Furthermore, due to his dedicated belief in his religion, it is extremely unlikely that he would have done anything in order to purposefully damage the political structure of his native country. It can be argued that his illegitimate sexual behaviour proves his deceptiveness. However, most evidence shows us that Rasputin had a strange belief that through sin, one can become closer to God. If this is true, then it is improbable that he would have made any kind of endeavours to seize any power in Russia.

A more likely contribution to the fall of the Tsar is his failure during the war. Many historians argue that because the Tsar went to war in 1915 and the Tsarina was left in control of the country, Rasputin was left with a lot of power due to her trust for him, which disheartened and upset the Russian public, and in addition, caused the country to be run very poorly, possibly stirring the murmurs of revolution.

In actual fact, Rasputin tried to advise the Tsar to make certain military decisions, which he ignored. The Tsar made many decisions during the beginning phase of the war, and the Russians repeatedly lost battles. The troops hoped that the Tsar would be overthrown so they could start winning, and the generals believed that there would be more victories without him telling them what to do. It is actually arguable that if the Tsar had listened to Rasputin, the Russian Empire would have had many glorious victories and the Tsar would have been hailed as a great military commander, possibly delaying or even completely preventing the revolution from taking place. As well as this, it is extremely likely that due to Rasputin’s connection to the Russian hierarchy, and his power and infamy, that the Russian public would have blamed Rasputin for the errors that the Tsar made, as the Tsar was seen as holy and almost perfect.

Many people believe that Rasputin was actually unwittingly a major contribution to the fall of the Tsar. There is a great deal of evidence to show how much the public despised Rasputin, owing to his extravagant behaviour, power, and apparent bad influence on the Tsar’s family. Due to this, it is very possible that the public would have begun to dislike the Tsar because of his affiliation with Rasputin. Also, the public may have seen the Tsar as becoming weak and giving in to Rasputin, and decided that it was better to rid the country of autocracy completely instead of give in to the power of such an unpopular figure. However, this theory is unlikely, as the Tsar’s family were murdered after the revolution, and it would have been quite possible to have killed Rasputin without ever starting a revolution or harmed the royal family.

Revolution was probably inevitable with or without the presence of Rasputin. The country was virtually falling apart. Germany had 10 times the length of railway, Britain had 150 times the number of factories. The railways were run so poorly that not enough grain could be transported into towns. Prices multiplied by 7.5 from 1913 to 1917. This problem was made even worse by the fact that the army was growing more and more. The Economy was crumbling, and the idea of a communist government was spreading uncontrollably. The country was politically and technologically backwards. Almost everyone in Russia wanted change, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Rasputin may have been a very eccentric and possibly dangerous and instigative man, and it may have been his wish to gain a lot of power via the royal family, but bad intentions or not, it is extremely unlikely that the situation in Russia would have been much different at the end of the year if he hadn’t existed.

Why did the Russian provisional government fail?

Many Historians believe that the failure of the Provisional Government in Russia was through little fault of their own, and it was only a matter of time before its collapse. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that their demise was due to a large quantity of poor decisions on their part.

The name “provisional government” implies that it wasn’t planned for it to be permanent, and was merely put into place to keep to country in order while decisions were being made as to how the country would be ruled. However, the government at this point was controlled by middle-to-upper class citizens, who had no intention of creating any form of fair democracy with the workers views in mind. They hoped to rule as a group for a long time.

One of the main reasons that a revolution to overthrow the provisional government took place was due to the fact that they never had in mind the views or opinions of the people who had overthrown the Tsar, therefore there was no reason why these parties should be happy with rule on the part of the provisional government. The first decision (known as “order number 1”) made by the government was to work alongside the Petrograd soviet instead of fighting against it, however, The Russian Duma was selected by the middle-classes, and therefore had no sympathy for the working class. Many will argue that this was only natural and the fact that; when the provisional government came into being, it was controlled without sympathies for the workers in mind; was a matter of chance, or due to past events; but it would have been quite easy for the members of the provisional government to decide to appease the working class in order to win widespread support. Therefore, this was a mistake on the part of the government

Another bad decision on the part of the Duma was that of setting free all political prisoners. They believed this would make them appear fair and trustworthy, but, the German government, who were not particularly aware of Russian internal affairs, knew it would be a good idea to send Lenin on a sealed train to Russia. They were proved right, as Lenin later led the Bolshevik party to victory over the provisional government.

They also decided to continue the war against Germany, which they were already losing, and many soldiers and sailors were mutinying. This was yet another foolish decision, as it was clear the people wanted peace. The decision to carry on fighting only meant more mutinies, more famine, and more casualties. Therefore, less popularity for the government.

Many peasants didn’t believe in any serious communism, however, almost all peasants wanted to own their own land; at least enough that they could get a decent living from. However, the government made the decision to leave the land in the hands of the current property owners, thus turning the support of the working class against themselves.

The soviets and the provisional government agreed to co-operate in order to help the country to become stable again, and in the hopes that one day the country could prosper again. However, a lot of soviet members strongly disliked co-operation with the provisional government, and yearned for communism. This proved a bad decision on the part of the provisional government, as the soviets already had a lot of legitimate political power when Lenin uttered his famous words “all power to the soviets”. However, it is also arguable that the provisional government were not strong enough to have destroyed the soviets, even in the early stages.

The provisional government also agreed with the soviets on the topics of freedom of speech and the press: a move the government hoped would increase national levels of trust, as well as allowing the people the right to form unions or strike if they wished, and for elections to be fair and a constitution to be drawn up. However, these decisions just increased the power and the popularity of the soviets, which would later be the downfall of the provisional government.

c) The following were equally important reasons for why the Bolsheviks were able to take over the Russian government in November 1917:

-Leadership of Lenin

-Role of Luck

-Bolshevik Policies and Propaganda

-The weakness’ of the opposition

Explain how far you agree with this statement.

Each of this factors were linked in a web of causation. If any of these factors were taken away, it would have been much harder, possibly even impossible, for the Bolsheviks to have taken over.

Many Historians argue that the role of Lenin was the most important factor by far. The Germans believed him to have been extremely powerful, powerful enough to destroy the Russian government, and they trusted this theory far enough to decide to put on a special sealed train for him. When he arrived in Russia, one of the main slogans he used often was “Peace, Land, and Bread” – this was extremely significant as it summed up exactly what the Russian people wanted most, and made them certain that he was one of them and had their views in mind. He wrote his “April theses” in no time at all, and the first point was “no support for provision government”; this makes it clear that he not only had a lot of influence, but knew that he had a lot of influence and knew that the provisional government would fall if he wished it. He had already had the opportunity to seize power during what was known as the “July days”, and he refused. He was certainly very confident that specific events would come to pass. As soon as he arrived in Russia, major changes took place and the Bolsheviks gained power extremely quickly. After the Kornilov revolt, Lenin sent orders to his subordinates telling them exactly what to do, as he knew that if all of the soviets had a conference, the Bolsheviks would be outnumbered by parties which had different views. Without Lenin, it surely would have been impossible for them to take control.

However, without the role of luck, the Germans would never have put on the sealed train, and Lenin may never have arrived in Russia. It was due to good Bolshevik policies that he became such a popular figure, and the party would have had a much more difficult time if any other party had a leader as strong and intelligent as Lenin. Therefore, this factor relied on the other 3 factors in order for it to have been effective.

Other Historians argue that it was sheer luck that caused the Bolsheviks to be able to achieve what they did, and without a great deal of it (multiple events, one after another benefitting the Bolshevik party in unlikely ways), then the party surely would not have gained power. The sealed train put on by the Germans was clearly a factor of luck: if they hadn’t been at war then that would never have happened (ironic considering that one of the Bolshevik party’s policies was to end the war), also it is considered to be an event by luck that the provisional government had made the poor decision to release political exiles, among other foolish mistakes made by the government at the time. If it wasn’t for the Kornalov revolt, the party would never have amassed the weapons they needed to destroy its strongest opposition. Also, after the July days, it was seen as very unlikely, and later, very, very lucky, that they were given another chance in November.

Despite all this evidence, if there was no Lenin, or no strong intelligent Bolshevik party, to exploit this luck in the first place, then it wouldn’t have made much difference. In addition, the opposition parties also had their chances to exploit many of these circumstances, and never took that chance like the Bolsheviks did. Without these 3 factors, the abundance of luck would have meant nothing.

Some people believe that it was in fact the intelligence and good decision-making of the other members of the Bolshevik party (other than Lenin), which made it able to gain power. It has been argued that the party had extremely good propaganda, the likes of which were revolutionary and never seen before. This could in fact have the beginning of what is now “modern marketing”. In addition, the Bolshevik’s policies struck a high note in the desires of the general Russian public, and naturally they became very popular very fast. The “Peace, land, and Bread” Slogan spread quickly and effectively, they successfully built an unusual and diverse (although not geographically diverse) umbrella of support. They were the only part to oppose war as much as they did – This was particularly effective with the “workers should not fight other workers” policy. It made the Russian public feel like they were part of something higher than that of the middle-class, and even the aristocracy.

However, It is much more likely that these policies and decisions were made not because of the supreme minds of the members of the Bolshevik party – many were not even well educated – but due to luck. They were lucky that the decisions they made happened to be the right ones. Also, if it were not for Lenin, there would have been no Bolshevik party to make such decisions, and, at any rate, there is significant evidence to suggest that Lenin was behind a great deal of these decisions himself. Also, it is a clear weakness of other parties that they were not very good at propaganda, and they did not choose their policies in a way that the Russian public found attractive.

A lot of people would claim that it was in fact the failure of other parties which allowed the Bolsheviks to gain support – perhaps if one of the opposing parties had taken the initiative and taken so many risks and come out lucky, the Bolshevik party would have been left in the shade, waiting for their opportunity to seize power – an opportunity which might not have come around again. They just happened to be fortunate enough that all of these parties were extremely weak and incapable of achieving such ends. The Cadets already had all the power they wanted, and were happy with it, so weren’t in any particular hurry to make any major changes – much to the distaste of the general public. The Social Revolutionaries were too 1-dimensional. The only major policy that they had was for land reform, and the public wanted more. Also, the party was too diverse geographically. And finally, the Mensheviks didn’t believe that Russia was ready for such changes yet, and therefore had no action to go through with.

However, this factor, like the others, rely on the other 3 factors in a web of causation. It is arguable that the reason these parties were so weak was because none of them had a strong, risk-taking, intelligent leader like Lenin. Also, it is very possible that they failed due an overwhelming amount of bad luck. Finally, it is probable that the main weakness of each of these 3 parties was the fact that they were not as good at propaganda, and certainly did not have more popular policies, than the Bolshevik party.

At the end of the day, it is very unlikely that the Bolsheviks would have managed to have taken power if any of these 4 factors were taken away, and was extremely unlikely that they would have done it so quickly, and retained power for so long.

By Joseph Fitzpatrick

Bibliography:

All information from the following sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917 (free copyright

History In Focus: GCSE modern world history, second edition by Ben Walsh. (www.hoddereducation.co.uk) – ISBN: 0-7195-7713-6

GCSE Coursework: The Russian Revolution 1917, Information sheets.