On the other hand, it can be argued that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War was just as, or even more important in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, as was the image of the Bolsheviks as being patriotic heroes fighting against Tsarist leaders and foreign invaders. Obviously, it was the October Revolution which brought the Bolshevik Party into power, giving them control of Russia. It can therefore be said that, had this not occurred, then it is incredibly unlikely that the Bolsheviks would ever have come into power. The Revolution was, of course, Lenin’s major goal (though in the end it was organised by Trotsky) for his party, and it was through his leadership and staunch dedication to the fall of the Provisional Government that the Bolsheviks eventually seized power in October 1917. Had it not been for Lenin, the Bolsheviks would never have taken power in the first place, as free elections were to be held in November 1917, with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs) being the most popular at the time.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? In October 1917 the Bolshevik’s took control of Russia after staging a revolution. However they faced many dangers/threats while in power from the years 1917-1924 such as a civil war and the economic crisis it caused. The leadership of the red army by Trotsky is a very important reason that the Bolsheviks got into power as his red army implanted the revolution but also to the survival of the Bolsheviks as the red army overcame the Bolsheviks biggest threat of the civil war. However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
The ongoing debate within the Bolshevik party between the years 1924 and 1928 regarding the New Economic Policy was largely responsible for the power struggle that followed Lenin’s death. However, there were other factors, such as the nature of the leadership the party should adopt and the direction the Revolution should take ideologically. Additionally, personal ambitions played a part in the struggle for power. The New Economic Policy was introduced after the end of the Civil War as a substitute to War Communism in 1921. This was an economic concession that Lenin was forced to make due to the deteriorating economic conditions and the real threat of a revolt against the Bolshevik government.
How far do you agree that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way? The February Revolution of 1917 that brought down the Tsarist regime and led to the ascension of the Provisional Government, had much potential to bring about significant change from the autocratic regime of the Tsars. However, the totalitarian government of the communists seized power in the October Revolution and continued to maintain many aspects of Tsarist rule including the top-down approach to rule, their ideology in policy making and their repressive methods. Although the communists and Tsars appeared to rule differently in their theory, in practice their methods were to a very large extent the same. The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology.
For Lenin, the party was to be a group prepared to seize power as soon as possible yet on the other hand, for Martov, the main purpose of the party was to spread propaganda and raise the level of consciousness of the proletariat. This was because he did not believe that Russia was ready for a Marxist revolution for many years. Lenin believed that is the Mensheviks had their way, it would take years to start the revolution; they would just waste time on useless discussion and argument. Martov, replied that the revolution would fail if it did not have the support of the whole working class. The social democratic party remained spilt on the issue.
A change in society occurred in June of 1918 with the introduction of War Communism. War Communism meant that all industry was nationalised, private sales were forbidden as personal profits became illegal, strict working rules were put in place, and a class based rationing system was introduced. War Communism brought about major changes to Russian society but in order to assess how successful it was in its changes, each aspect of its original goals must be looked at. As described by David Christian, one of the two pressures that lead to War communism was ‘the need to fight the civil war’. In this aspect the changes brought about by this policy were successful as it resulted in a Bolshevik victory in the war as it ‘...did the job of supplying towns and armies with just enough food and supplies to keep providing war material and to keep fighting.
His views fell between those of Clemenceau and those of Wilson. He was under huge pressure from the public to punish Germany. Yet at the same time he believed he should not punish Germany too harshly. He saw this action as disastrous for future peace, for Germany would seek revenge in the near future if the treaty was too harsh. “We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive.
Later in WWII, Russia and Germany agreed on a non aggression act. While Britain and France were fighting for their existence, Russia was trying to have peace with Germany and eventually form part of the Axis powers. The only reason Russia stopped insertion into the Axis powers was because Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Allies and the Soviet Union now shared an enemy and were interesting in becoming
However, although these factors were important in contributing to the decline of the Provisional Government, it was ultimately their internal decisions, one deciding to continue fighting in the war, that lead to the failure of it. Actions made by the Provisional Government towards the continuation in the war can be the seen as the main reason for their failure in 1917. Many within the Provisional Government believed that it was Russia’s duty to stay in the war, in particular, the foreign minister, Paul Milyukov, strongly believed that Russia’s future lay with victory over Germany. This sparked conflict between the Soviet and the Provisional Government, as the Soviet only accepted the continuation of war to stop Germany taking over, where as the the Provisional Government had other aims to claim territory. This clash of aims created trouble for the government, as in April 1917 demonstrations in Petrograd began to stop the war.
A political factor that caused the Russian Revolution was absolutism. As stated in Document 2, absolutism caused strikes, illegal proclamations, underground circles, etc. Document 4 shows the numerous strikes that took place before the Russian Revolution, due to the Bolsheviks’ point of view toward absolutism. Document 3 was stated by a delegate at Samara who talked about absolutism. He believed that the people should own the land.