Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, forced the Provisional Government out of the office and placed themselves in power. On the 7th of November, 1917, the Russian Revolution began, triggering eight months of uncertainty and violence for the country and its citizens. In the April Theses, a speech made by Lenin promising peace, bread, and land, the peasantry, and much of the working class, were angry and ready for a revolution due to the unfair treatment they had faced by the tsar. The October Revolution of 1917 was the biggest revolution within Russia at the time and the Bolsheviks took advantage of this tension and took power. They stormed the Winter Palace, armed and ready to remove MPs from power. Lenin and the Bolsheviks became the sole rulers of Russia having removed the Provisional Government and, earlier, the tsar. The Russian Revolution led to 74 years of Communist rule, altering the course of the country forever and affecting not just the citizens but the government too. The perspective taken by historians on Lenin`s seizure of power drastically changes from the Liberal view of Lenin being a hero and having the country`s best interests in mind, to the Socialist view in which Lenin is a villain who destroyed the structure of Russia and selfishly took power for himself. On the other hand, the revisionist view does not blame Lenin for the revolution but asks why there was an uprising in the first place and instead shuns the conditions of Russia, blaming the country as a whole for the revolution.
Liberal Historians agree that the Russian Revolution was an illegal seizure of power from the Bolsheviks. Lenin planned to hold a coup d’tat and take power from the Provisional Government in November 1917, which would result in Lenin becoming the leader of Russia despite being in exile at the time of planning the uprising. An author who supports this claim is George Katkov who wrote that Lenin decided not to compete on that particular stage, but instead vanished into a twilight world (Katkov, 1971, Pg. 33) which suggests that Lenin was not taking on responsibility for the coup d`tat that he instigated. Lenin remained in exile which many Liberal historians have criticized him for, especially due to the fact that he was absent from the Kornilov Affair which only came about due to General Kornilov`s hatred for the Provisional Government. Lenin only returned to Russia when he saw the opportunity for a revolution which proves that he did not do as much as he could have to in defending his own party.
Another author who supports this view is Rex A. Wade, highlighted in the book (Wade, 2001, Pg. 224) when he says Lenin realized that the fall of 1917 offered a unique opportunity for a radical restructuring of political power and for a man suggesting that Lenin only returned for the sake of taking power, not for helping the people. This obvious power grab supports Katkov`s argument as it highlights Lenin`s mindset at the time and how he did not want to return to help the people but to selfishly seize the opportunity for revolution.
A second view that Liberal historians believe in is that the Bolsheviks did not have the public`s benefit at heart which Lenin had repeated during his speeches and declarations. An author who supports this view is Shelia Fitzpatrick who states that the Bolshevik`s slogan All power to the soviets was essentially provocative (Fitzpatrick, 1982, Pg. 61) highlighting that the slogan the Bolsheviks chose was only performative and meant to make themselves look better when in reality, they were just appealing to the masses and gaining support for their eventual takeover. When he did eventually come into power, Lenin did not do as much for the masses of poor people as he had promised. For example, the great famine between 1921 and 1922 led to severe starvation and a massive death toll of around five million. Although this was after the revolution, Lenin`s leadership qualities were limited in terms of the promises he made, illustrating that he did not care about the public but just wanted the majority vote, which at the time, was peasants to ensure that he could over the Winter Palace easily. However, there was a fault in Lenin`s plan as he did not secure the majority vote. An internal Bolshevik vote highlights that he was not the most popular Bolshevik leader, let alone the most Russian to lead. This information is definitely valid for a liberal historian as it proves that Lenin took his power through violence and force and not through the support of the people.
Another author who supports this view is John Petrov Plamenatz in his book (Plamenatz, 1965, Pg. 233) when he says Lenin did not care for the peasants as peasants highlighting that Lenin did not see peasants as people to help and support but Russian citizens who could aid him in his climb to power. The abstract verb care highlights that he did not sympathize with the struggles of the peasantry and did not want to improve the country`s poverty line for the people, just to make himself look better. This strengthens Fitzpatrick`s argument as it shows that Lenin did not care (Plamenatz, 1965, Pg. 201) about helping the people but gaining their trust and support only to exploit it for his own benefit.
Liberal historians also agree that Lenin was rallying for a revolution and purposely aggravating unrest within the public. Historian and author Hamish MacDonald further this in his book (MacDonald, 1994, Pg. 59) when he says that In another meeting Lenin explained what came to be called his April Theses … Together they turned people’s anger with the war and Kerensky visiting the front in 1917. Suggesting that Lenin was the one to create massive amounts of tension within Russia at the time of the revolution. However, a revisionist historian would argue that Lenin did not create these tensions but instead heightened them as there were many causes for anger and upset within Russia at the time, even without the aid of Lenin. Despite this, it could be argued that Lenin did stir tensions during this time as the April Theses was followed by the October Revolution which led to the removal of the Provisional Government and the placement of Lenin in power.
Another author who argues for this Liberal view is Nina Brown Baker who, in her book (Brown, 1945, Pg. 104), says that Lenin, who had instigated as much violence highlighting that Lenin was trying to cause as much upset and anger towards the government as he could to made sure that he had many people on his side when he inevitably tried to take over Russia. This technique of rallying people, mostly the peasantry and working class, worked very efficiently in regards to coaxing a revolution however, this did not mean that the Bolsheviks were popular. The constituent assembly elections of 1917 were a huge loss for the Bolsheviks as the Provisional Government secured the country and created a more strict way of living in comparison to when the tsar had abdicated eight months ago.
The Soviet view on the Russian Revolution details Lenin to be a heroic figure and the Bolsheviks as saviors to the cause. After such major losses from the tsar such as World War One, major city strikes and food shortages, and continuous upsets under the provisional government such as economic upset and an unstable government, the Russian people sought out a drastic change. The Soviet view incorporates the events of the Russian Revolution in Lenin`s favor and paints him to be, not only the biggest cause of the revolution but also the best and most organized.
A Soviet author that backs up this claim is Baldwin in his book Ideologies. He says that He (Lenin) gave the workers control over the factories, and he asked the peasants to give their surplus food to the workers (Baldwin, 1997, Pg.) highlighting Lenin`s care for the working class, backed up by the fact that the rank of the workers in the Petrograd Soviet grew to 417,000 by 1917. He also repeats Lenin`s slogan of Peace, Land, and Bread to further imply that Lenin had the peasant’s best interests at heart. This slogan was announced at the April Theses in 1917 when Lenin returned from exile to continue raising support for the upcoming revolution. He specifically focused on food in particular due to the severe lack of it during World War One, which wouldn`t end for another year. Supplies went straight to the soldiers at this time due to the lack of strength and patriotism within the army compared to other countries such as Britain and France. This left a massive majority of the peasantry class starving and, consequently, easy to recruit. In this case, Baldwin`s view holds a lot of validity due to the disruption felt by the peasantry. In comparison to this, however, it could be argued that Lenin did not have the peasantry`s best interests at heart. Author John Plamenatz details that Lenin did not care for the peasants as peasants (Plamenatz, 1961) perhaps implying that Lenin only cared about the votes and support he gained from the peasantry, not their struggles or aiding them at all. This negative view is further promoted through Lenin`s use of the Cheka, a secret police force that used mass amounts of violence and brutal punishments such as dunking people in boiling water. This disproves the soviet view as it illustrates Lenin not as a hero but as a villainous character who used copious amounts of violence to instate his policies and put down uprisings.
Kurban is another Soviet author who highlights the Bolshevik`s bravery and compassion during the Russian Revolution. The author argues that The First World War is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most important reasons for the Russian revolution. The war led to a crisis affecting all classes of society, causing tension related to the overloaded economy and stress. (Kurban, 2017) This cultivation of World War One makes the Bolsheviks look especially compassionate towards those affected by the war which was everyone to some extent. Kurban`s announcement of an overloaded economy and stress is definitely true and can be backed up through evidence from the time. Rapid inflation and food shortages were just two of the consequences of War Communism, an economic policy in place in order to reduce costs and supplies during the war. Lenin`s outward dismissal and outrage towards this highlights that he was, in the peasantry and working class eyes, a hero who would support and save them from the starvation and lack of influence they had. Therefore, Kurban`s view does have a lot of validity. Two authors who back up this claim are Korte and Lethbridge who said that Lawrence’s heroic position is comparable to Lenin, comparing another man`s heroism to Lenin himself. (Korte, Lethbridge, 2016) This view promotes Lenin`s methods of taking power and how he did have the country`s best interests at heart. This view is again backed up by the fact that Lenin distributed land from wealthy land-owners
A second Soviet author who can back Kurban`s claims up is Pankratov. He claims that the Bolsheviks were courageous (Pankratov, 2020) in their counter-revolution and that they provided strength through determination. He also claims that the Provisional Government was in a crisis, which suggests that the Bolsheviks were indeed the saviors of Russia. During this period, the PG did have problems such as a lack of support and the severity of the famine. This led to mass starvation of the population and revolutionaries grew from this. Lenin took the opportunity to gain a following by promising all of the things that the peasantry, who were 80% of the population at the time, needed. He appealed to the working class, too, by showing his support for the February Revolution, which saw the people of Russia stand up for their livelihoods against the tsar. This revolution took place from the 22nd of February to the 3rd of March, 1917, and gathered support from the majority of the working class as well as, eventually, the army. In this instance, Pankrotov`s view does hold validity compared to a liberal view as the people did see Lenin as someone with their best interests at heart, especially compared to the tsar who did not appeal to the peasantry or working class at all.
A final Soviet view that makes Lenin and the Bolsheviks appear as Russia`s saviors is through David Shub’s biography of Lenin himself. He stresses that Lenin was confident (Shubs, 1966) within himself and was an able speaker, all of which is true. On top of this, Leon Trotsky, the leader of the Red Army, was also a self-assured and charismatic leader making it clear that the two were confident in their ideals, a vital feature that raised support for the party overall. This is proven by the amount of support Lenin raised by the October Revolution through the 200,000 Bolshevik members by 1917. Lenin`s confident nature allowed him a victory on almost every other important issue (Shubs, 1966) within the party, highlighting his supporter’s trust in him. They had faith in the command (Shubs, 1966) which allowed Lenin to be lenient with his promises to them, therefore helping him gain power quickly and without opposition. The faith that the Bolsheviks held in Lenin proves that he was likely deemed a hero by them, assuming that he had their best interests at heart. Additionally, Shubs states that Lenin detested hero worship, highlighting that he was deemed to be Russia`s winner by many. When Lenin took power in 1917, there was little opposition. This illustrates that Lenin was a greater leader than the Provisional Government and, in some instances, securing power for himself and the Bolsheviks was the best thing to do for the Bolsheviks as well as the people of the country overall, especially the peasantry who were promised better lives, especially after Lenin`s infamous promise of bread, peace, and land. Overall, Shub’s view of Lenin`s heroism is valid and holds a lot of truth when compared to the condition of Russia after 1917, for example, his literacy campaign which enrolled five million Russians in response to the massive illiteracy problem facing Russia.
A Soviet author who can lend truth to Shub’s claims of Bolshevik heroism is Dimitri Volkogonov who shows an understanding that Lenin showed good judgment (Volkogonov, 2008) in regard to his plans during the Russian Revolution. Volkogonov describes Lenin`s excellent judgment when discussing giving Trotsky the task of creating the Red Army. Leon Trotsky was a member of the Mensheviks, the minority party that broke off from the Bolsheviks in 1903. After proving himself to be an expert thinker, and developing his own theory of, permanent revolution, Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks and became the foreign commissar where he found himself negotiating peace terms with Germany. His outstanding leadership of the Red Army, the Bolsheviks army which countered the White Russian Forces in the Russian Revolution, allowed him to become an heir to the Bolshevik party. Although Trotsky would never rule the Bolsheviks as he had hoped, Trotsky was a fine leader of the army and throughout the Russian Revolution, his military skills played a decisive role in the communist take-over of Russia.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.