Lesson 6 - The October 'Bolshevik' Revolution
|
The next three lessons feature in the IB DP syllabus as Topic 10. Authoritarian States. It is the first of two topics which are central to our coverage for the essay paper 2.
Students who wish to be considered for the Moser Double Diploma will be encouraged to complete additional assignments in this unit beginning with the additional lessons on this page and the 'extra and extension' at the end of each lesson. |
Why were there two revolutions in 1917?
‘What the generals and politicians had done was unleash the revolution they had sought to prevent…The people knew what they wanted; the elite did not know how to hold on to what it had. Once the Tsar was removed, the state was decapitated, authority collapsed, the whole structure of society began to unravel, and a climate of disobedience developed. It was allowed to develop by paralysis at the top. The problem was that there was really no one at the top at all, there was a vacuum: no one was prepared to take the responsibility and use force to restore law and order.’ Graham Darby, The Russian Revolution p.86
|
To begin with you need to consider the timeline of events in 1917. The important events in bold you need to understand and remember.
In February 1917, Russia's Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown. It was not a planned revolution. It began on February 23rd with women workers striking in Petrograd over bread shortages, grew within days to 250,000 strikers, and ended when the army refused to restore order. On March 2nd, with his generals and the Duma both telling him his position was hopeless, Nicholas abdicated. Three hundred years of Romanov rule collapsed in less than two weeks. What replaced him was not a single new government but two competing centres of power existing side by side. The Provisional Government, made up mainly of liberal Duma politicians, claimed authority over Russia. But the Petrograd Soviet, representing workers and soldiers, controlled the railways, the post and telegraph services and much of the army. From its very first day, the Provisional Government could not give an order it was certain would be obeyed. This unstable arrangement, with two rival bodies each claiming to speak for Russia, is what historians call dual power. It would prove fatal. The Provisional Government faced three demands it could not easily meet. The peasants wanted land. The workers wanted food and better conditions. The soldiers wanted an end to the war. Meeting all three simultaneously, in the middle of a catastrophic world war, was close to impossible. Yet the government's failure to try hard enough, and its decision to launch a new offensive in June 1917, destroyed whatever goodwill it had inherited from February. By the autumn, it was losing control of the countryside, the factories and the army at the same time.
This is the situation Lenin and the Bolsheviks inherited when they seized power in October. The question historians argue about is how to explain what happened. Was it Lenin's revolution? Was it the inevitable result of the government's collapse? Was it the people themselves who drove events? As the historian Michael Lynch puts it: 'The February revolution had been essentially the collapse of tsardom from within. The October revolution was a seizure of power by the Bolshevik Party from the Provisional Government, which had proved no more capable of successfully leading Russia in wartime than the Tsar had.' To understand why, we need to look at four interconnected factors. |
|
The Bolshevik Revolution - October 1917
‘…for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers …should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; secondly that the ruling classes be in a state of governmental crisis which draws even the most backward masses into politics…a crisis which weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly’
Vladimir Lenin quoted in Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Christopher Hill 1947
Vladimir Lenin quoted in Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Christopher Hill 1947
|
The Provisional Government was 'elbowed out of existence by a slight push' - Isaac Deutscher - Stalin
So why did the Provisional Government fail? Four identifiable aspects:
|
|
1. Failings of the Provisional Government (or better still, the inherent weaknesses of the Provisional Government)
Perhaps the best way to understand the Provisional Government is to feel some sympathy for it. It inherited a country at war, an economy close to collapse and a population on the edge of revolt. In many ways it was asked to achieve the impossible.
But its structural weakness was there from the very beginning. On March 1st, the Petrograd Soviet issued Order No.1, which gave the Soviet direct authority over the armed forces. Soldiers were instructed to obey the Provisional Government only where its orders did not conflict with those of the Soviet. From its first days in power, the government had no reliable control over the army. It governed in name, but real power rested elsewhere. Check the timeline: how many days passed between the Tsar's abdication and Order No.1?
The consequences of dual power shaped everything that followed. On land, the government established a grain monopoly on March 25th and announced rationing on April 29th. Two months later, rationing had still not been implemented. On July 8th it issued a decree confirming that land seizures were completely impermissible until the Constituent Assembly met. The peasants ignored it. On the war, the government launched a major offensive in June 1917. Look up what happened and explain why the result was so damaging for the government's authority.
The decisive blow came in late August. General Kornilov, the army's commander-in-chief, attempted to march his troops on Petrograd with the aim of crushing the Soviets and restoring order. Kerensky was forced to arm the Bolsheviks to defend the city. Kornilov's coup failed, but the damage to the government was irreversible. It had been humiliated, it had armed its opponents, and it had demonstrated once again that it could not control its own military. By October, almost no one was left willing to defend it.
As Lenin remarked with some justice, the government's position was essentially: wait until the Constituent Assembly for land; wait until the end of the war for the Constituent Assembly; wait until total victory for the end of the war. It was a policy of permanent postponement in a country that had already run out of patience.
2. Peasants, workers and soldiers disillusioned and attracted by the Marxist soviets.
It would be a mistake to see October 1917 purely as a revolution organised from above. Long before Lenin returned to Russia, ordinary people were already taking matters into their own hands.
On February 23rd, International Women's Day, thousands of women workers in Petrograd went on strike over bread shortages and the continuing war. Their protest triggered wider strikes and within days the February Revolution had toppled the Tsar. The revolution had begun not with a party directive but with hungry workers in the street. Lenin was still in exile in Switzerland.
The three groups whose discontent drove the revolution were the peasants, the workers and the soldiers. The peasants wanted land, and by the summer of 1917 many were simply seizing the estates of the nobility without waiting for government permission. As the historian Acton argues, their goals, methods and rhythm were entirely their own. The workers, radicalised by rising prices and chronic food shortages, went on strike in growing numbers. Employers in Petrograd had conceded the eight-hour working day as early as March 10th, in force across the country by the end of April. Yet conditions continued to deteriorate and strikes increased from May onwards, peaking in September. Can you find a specific example of what workers were striking over in the second half of 1917?
The most important group of all were the soldiers. They were, as the phrase goes, peasants in uniform: young men from the countryside who shared the same grievances as the peasants at home, now being asked to die for a government they had no reason to trust. After the Kornilov Affair, the soldiers' last reserves of loyalty to the Provisional Government collapsed entirely. Committees formed, orders went unheeded, and whole units began to drift away from the front. By October, in the words of the historian Wildman, the army was being swept by a virtual tidal wave of self-assertion by the soldier mass on behalf of peace, regardless of consequences or conditions. Without the army, the government had nothing.
3. The role of the Bolsheviks and the Soviets
When the Provisional Government failed to meet the increasingly radical demands of the people, the people set up their own committees to take direct action. These were the Soviets, representative councils of workers and soldiers that had first appeared during the 1905 revolution and now spread rapidly: around 300 within three months of February, 600 by August, and over 900 by October. But the Soviets alone could not end the war, restore the economy or ensure food supplies. This is why the leadership of a disciplined political party became essential.
In February 1917 a successful Bolshevik revolution looked unlikely. The party had only around 10,000 members. The Soviets were dominated by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. The July Days, when a premature armed demonstration in Petrograd was suppressed and the Bolsheviks briefly discredited, seemed to confirm their weakness. Look at the timeline: what happened to Lenin immediately after the July Days?
The Kornilov Affair changed everything. The Bolsheviks had helped defend Petrograd and emerged as heroes. More importantly, the affair destroyed whatever trust soldiers and workers had placed in the Provisional Government and the moderate socialist parties that had supported it. People turned to the Bolsheviks precisely because they had not been tainted by the government's failures. By October, membership had grown to around 300,000. On September 25th the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets, with Trotsky elected as chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. On October 20th the Military Revolutionary Committee met for the first time: this was the organisational body that would actually direct the seizure of power.
As Wildman has argued, the Bolsheviks did not offer a new vision of the revolution but rather a more speedy realisation of the original one. Or as Darby puts it, they did not create the people's programme, they merely articulated it. The conditions had been created by others. The Bolsheviks were ready to act on them.
4. The role of Lenin was central (see previous lesson on Lenin’s role in 1917).
Lenin returned to Petrograd on April 3rd, 1917, and immediately made his position clear. In what became known as the April Theses, he argued that the Bolsheviks should not support the Provisional Government in any form, that the war should be ended immediately, and that power should pass to the Soviets. 'All Power to the Soviets' and 'Peace, Land and Bread' became the slogans that connected Bolshevik ideology to what ordinary Russians actually wanted. In his own party, the April Theses were controversial. Find out which leading Bolsheviks publicly opposed Lenin's call for an armed uprising as late as October 18th.
His skill as a politician is acknowledged by virtually all historians. But perhaps the most telling demonstration of his individual importance came on the evening of October 10th. Meeting in a private apartment in Petrograd, Lenin in disguise, the Bolshevik Central Committee gathered to debate whether to launch an armed uprising. Many members were hesitant. Lenin argued, pushed and persuaded. The committee voted 10 to 2 in favour of revolution. Without that vote, it is not clear that the Bolsheviks would have acted when they did.
The conditions were right, the popular anger was real and the Provisional Government was collapsing. But as the historian Robert Service reminds us, conditions alone do not make revolutions:
'The revolution has often been held to have been mainly Lenin's revolution. But was it? Certainly Lenin had a heavier impact on the course of events than anyone else. The point is, however, that great historical changes are brought about not only by individuals. There were other mighty factors at work as well in Russia in 1917.'
Kerensky's decision to move against the Bolsheviks on October 24th, ordering the closure of their press and the raising of Petrograd's bridges, gave Lenin the justification he needed. The Bolsheviks defended themselves and then advanced. By the following morning, the Winter Palace had fallen and the Provisional Government was finished. Use the timeline to reconstruct the precise sequence of events on October 24th and 25th.
- Failed to impose their authority on the Soviets (How could they?)
- Were too divided
- Failed to call the Constituent Assembly (to gain authority in an election they would lose?)
- Wanted to (had to?) continue the war
- Did not redistribute land (but, how could they?)
- Could not manage the economy
Perhaps the best way to understand the Provisional Government is to feel some sympathy for it. It inherited a country at war, an economy close to collapse and a population on the edge of revolt. In many ways it was asked to achieve the impossible.
But its structural weakness was there from the very beginning. On March 1st, the Petrograd Soviet issued Order No.1, which gave the Soviet direct authority over the armed forces. Soldiers were instructed to obey the Provisional Government only where its orders did not conflict with those of the Soviet. From its first days in power, the government had no reliable control over the army. It governed in name, but real power rested elsewhere. Check the timeline: how many days passed between the Tsar's abdication and Order No.1?
The consequences of dual power shaped everything that followed. On land, the government established a grain monopoly on March 25th and announced rationing on April 29th. Two months later, rationing had still not been implemented. On July 8th it issued a decree confirming that land seizures were completely impermissible until the Constituent Assembly met. The peasants ignored it. On the war, the government launched a major offensive in June 1917. Look up what happened and explain why the result was so damaging for the government's authority.
The decisive blow came in late August. General Kornilov, the army's commander-in-chief, attempted to march his troops on Petrograd with the aim of crushing the Soviets and restoring order. Kerensky was forced to arm the Bolsheviks to defend the city. Kornilov's coup failed, but the damage to the government was irreversible. It had been humiliated, it had armed its opponents, and it had demonstrated once again that it could not control its own military. By October, almost no one was left willing to defend it.
As Lenin remarked with some justice, the government's position was essentially: wait until the Constituent Assembly for land; wait until the end of the war for the Constituent Assembly; wait until total victory for the end of the war. It was a policy of permanent postponement in a country that had already run out of patience.
2. Peasants, workers and soldiers disillusioned and attracted by the Marxist soviets.
It would be a mistake to see October 1917 purely as a revolution organised from above. Long before Lenin returned to Russia, ordinary people were already taking matters into their own hands.
On February 23rd, International Women's Day, thousands of women workers in Petrograd went on strike over bread shortages and the continuing war. Their protest triggered wider strikes and within days the February Revolution had toppled the Tsar. The revolution had begun not with a party directive but with hungry workers in the street. Lenin was still in exile in Switzerland.
The three groups whose discontent drove the revolution were the peasants, the workers and the soldiers. The peasants wanted land, and by the summer of 1917 many were simply seizing the estates of the nobility without waiting for government permission. As the historian Acton argues, their goals, methods and rhythm were entirely their own. The workers, radicalised by rising prices and chronic food shortages, went on strike in growing numbers. Employers in Petrograd had conceded the eight-hour working day as early as March 10th, in force across the country by the end of April. Yet conditions continued to deteriorate and strikes increased from May onwards, peaking in September. Can you find a specific example of what workers were striking over in the second half of 1917?
The most important group of all were the soldiers. They were, as the phrase goes, peasants in uniform: young men from the countryside who shared the same grievances as the peasants at home, now being asked to die for a government they had no reason to trust. After the Kornilov Affair, the soldiers' last reserves of loyalty to the Provisional Government collapsed entirely. Committees formed, orders went unheeded, and whole units began to drift away from the front. By October, in the words of the historian Wildman, the army was being swept by a virtual tidal wave of self-assertion by the soldier mass on behalf of peace, regardless of consequences or conditions. Without the army, the government had nothing.
3. The role of the Bolsheviks and the Soviets
When the Provisional Government failed to meet the increasingly radical demands of the people, the people set up their own committees to take direct action. These were the Soviets, representative councils of workers and soldiers that had first appeared during the 1905 revolution and now spread rapidly: around 300 within three months of February, 600 by August, and over 900 by October. But the Soviets alone could not end the war, restore the economy or ensure food supplies. This is why the leadership of a disciplined political party became essential.
In February 1917 a successful Bolshevik revolution looked unlikely. The party had only around 10,000 members. The Soviets were dominated by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. The July Days, when a premature armed demonstration in Petrograd was suppressed and the Bolsheviks briefly discredited, seemed to confirm their weakness. Look at the timeline: what happened to Lenin immediately after the July Days?
The Kornilov Affair changed everything. The Bolsheviks had helped defend Petrograd and emerged as heroes. More importantly, the affair destroyed whatever trust soldiers and workers had placed in the Provisional Government and the moderate socialist parties that had supported it. People turned to the Bolsheviks precisely because they had not been tainted by the government's failures. By October, membership had grown to around 300,000. On September 25th the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets, with Trotsky elected as chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. On October 20th the Military Revolutionary Committee met for the first time: this was the organisational body that would actually direct the seizure of power.
As Wildman has argued, the Bolsheviks did not offer a new vision of the revolution but rather a more speedy realisation of the original one. Or as Darby puts it, they did not create the people's programme, they merely articulated it. The conditions had been created by others. The Bolsheviks were ready to act on them.
4. The role of Lenin was central (see previous lesson on Lenin’s role in 1917).
Lenin returned to Petrograd on April 3rd, 1917, and immediately made his position clear. In what became known as the April Theses, he argued that the Bolsheviks should not support the Provisional Government in any form, that the war should be ended immediately, and that power should pass to the Soviets. 'All Power to the Soviets' and 'Peace, Land and Bread' became the slogans that connected Bolshevik ideology to what ordinary Russians actually wanted. In his own party, the April Theses were controversial. Find out which leading Bolsheviks publicly opposed Lenin's call for an armed uprising as late as October 18th.
His skill as a politician is acknowledged by virtually all historians. But perhaps the most telling demonstration of his individual importance came on the evening of October 10th. Meeting in a private apartment in Petrograd, Lenin in disguise, the Bolshevik Central Committee gathered to debate whether to launch an armed uprising. Many members were hesitant. Lenin argued, pushed and persuaded. The committee voted 10 to 2 in favour of revolution. Without that vote, it is not clear that the Bolsheviks would have acted when they did.
The conditions were right, the popular anger was real and the Provisional Government was collapsing. But as the historian Robert Service reminds us, conditions alone do not make revolutions:
'The revolution has often been held to have been mainly Lenin's revolution. But was it? Certainly Lenin had a heavier impact on the course of events than anyone else. The point is, however, that great historical changes are brought about not only by individuals. There were other mighty factors at work as well in Russia in 1917.'
Kerensky's decision to move against the Bolsheviks on October 24th, ordering the closure of their press and the raising of Petrograd's bridges, gave Lenin the justification he needed. The Bolsheviks defended themselves and then advanced. By the following morning, the Winter Palace had fallen and the Provisional Government was finished. Use the timeline to reconstruct the precise sequence of events on October 24th and 25th.
|
Activity - In class, on your own, timed and graded.
Using the notes above (see also textbook pages 111-116,) complete the revision diagram 'Was it Lenin's Revolution?' At the bottom of the diagram state your own conclusion and justify it. Was Lenin the most important reason for the October Revolution? If yes, why? If no, why not? 
|
|
What to consider when deciding which was the most important cause? - The CAPTAIN framework
When you are asked to explain why something happened in history, listing causes is only the beginning. The real challenge is to argue which cause mattered most, and why. We can use several key questions to do this. Together they form a useful framework for building a stronger argument, not just in this topic but in any question about cause and significance.
|
C - Catalyst - A catalyst is the immediate trigger that ignites forces already beneath the surface. But if almost anything would have produced the same outcome, the catalyst is just a symptom
A - Agency - How much was the result of deliberate decisions by individuals? A leader who capitalises brilliantly on a crisis deserves credit, but less than one who genuinely shaped events from the start. P - Priority - Which cause had to exist before the others became possible? A cause that created the conditions is more fundamental than one that only operated because those conditions already existed.. T - Turning Point - Did this cause change the direction of events, or did it simply accelerate something already under way? Avoid giving too much weight to events that felt dramatic at the time but changed little. A - Alternatives - Might events have turned out differently without this cause? If removing it makes a different outcome impossible to imagine, it is at the heart of the explanation. This is counterfactual thinking. I - Interconnection - Do the causes depend on each other? A cause that only matters because of another cause is less fundamental than one that stands independently at the root of everything else. (Priority) N - Numbers - How many people were affected, across how wide an area, and for how long? A cause that shaped the lives of millions across a whole country may be more fundamental. |
These categories are not a checklist to apply mechanically. The most sophisticated historical arguments use two or three of them together to build a case. For example, you might argue that one cause was the most important because it was the priority condition on which all others depended, that it affected the greatest number of people, and that without it a different outcome was entirely plausible. That is a much stronger argument than simply asserting that one cause was bigger than another.
Not every category will be equally useful for every question. Part of the skill is choosing which questions to ask.
Not every category will be equally useful for every question. Part of the skill is choosing which questions to ask.
Extras and extension
Graham Darby explains why there were two revolutions in 1917 and why the provisional government failed. Two extracts from an Advanced Level textbook that will take you further into this topic.
Orlando Figes writes about the central role of Lenin in 1917.
Orlando Figes writes about the central role of Lenin in 1917.
|
|
|
For IB students this is the first topic on the theme of the rise to power of modern authoritarian states. I explain a little more about all this in the three short films below.
|
|
|
|