Rukha Salman

ESSAYS ON FRENCH REVOLUTION

From 1799 to 1815, how far did Napolean maintain the aims of French Revolution?

To a certain extent Napoleon maintaned the aims of the revolution howewer there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. He maintaned the main principle of the french revolution which was to establish a constitution and besides provided France with a sturctured law system. On the other hand in 1804 he crowned himself emperor which was against the idea of equality and soon France was under the control of one man, which rememberd people to the hated feature of the Ancien Régime. Some people consider Napoleon as the sun of the revolution as he carried on the beneficial aspects of the French Revolution of 1789. Others see him as just another tyrant who betrayed the ideals of the revolution, suppressing elections and bringing back the monarchy and aristocracy. It is true that he tried to follow revolutionary ideas to please the public howewer his domestic policy was sometimes contradictory to liberal ideas and was rather unrevolutioanry.

In 1800 Napoleon established the Constitution of Year VIII and set up a system based on representative government. This was the key principle of the french revolution, to ensure political equality and universal suffrage. In theory Napoleon followed the aims of the revolution and gave the people what they wanted howewer in reality everything worked differently. The idea of popular sovereignty was a false picture to drove attention from Napoleon’s supremacy yet people still believed that they possessed political influence. He ensured that members of the Council of State and Senate were all loyal to him. By the time he became Emperor the Legislature was not more than a talking-shop while the abolition of the Tribunate helped him to secure his position as an absolute ruler. The revolutionaries were extremely impressed by the new constitution because in theory it matched with revolutioanry aims and indeed the main point of the revolution was to establish a constitution. Howewer the government as everything else was firmly in Napoleon s hands which outlined the picture of a tyranny and was against political equality so therefore we can assume that Napoleon did not fully mainted the aims of the french revolution.

In 1804, Napoleon took on the legal system of France. The system of laws was in a state of chaos before and during the revolution. Napoleon had introduced the Civil Code wich later in 1807 was renamed to the Code Napoléon, was one of Napoleon’s most important and lasting legacies embodied many principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution including the abolishment of feudal dues, the expansion of civil liberties, and religious toleration. The law was based on reason and founded on the notion that all men were equal before the law. It guaranteed individual rights and the security of property. Howewer equality before the law is fairly questionable. Secret agents, arbitrary arrests, and executions were used to oppress any form of opposition against the government hence against Napoleon. Such example was the execution of Duc d’Enghien who was suspected of conspiring against Napoleon . Some of Napoleon’s policies such equality before the law , individual rights and property rights matched with revolutionary aims howewer to detect and oppress opposition, Napoleon used illegal means and violence similarly to the ancien régime where the lettres de chacet replaced arbitrary arrests.

Napoleon, at least in theory promoted social and political equality. Careers were open to all those with ability, regardless of birth or social status. Howewer it was really hard to rise especially for the poor. Napoleon supported to provide equal education for all howewer he placed emphasis on the education of the children from aristocratic and highly influental families. For Napoleon, education served a dual role. State funded education provided him with capable officials necessary to administer his laws and trained officers to man his army. The young was also indoctrinated to obedience and authority. Teachers were

Rukha Salman

bound to swore oath of loyalty to their superiors. The education was under Napoleon’s control and France was rather similar to a totalitarian state than to a republic. Napoleon’s reforms especially concering the educational system on one hand promoted equality howewer on the other hand was against liberty and freedom of speech. It was extremly difficult to rise without proper education and a system of labour passports was instituted. Also Napoleon established the Legion of Honour which enabled the poor to rise due to his talent, granting them titles and rewards although it served a more important pourpose which was to create a noble class loyal to Napoleon. This went against the aims of the french revolution which was to destroy the estates system and also abolition of priviledges.

Religious freedom and equal taxation had been introduced, the latter especially important as inequality in taxation was a source of great tension between the privileged and unpriviledged classes. Napoleon, he concerned religion as the cement wich helds society together. He believed that it promoted national unitiy and could prevent the outbreak of future class conflicts. In 1801 he signed the Concordat with the papacy by which the Church became state-controlled and members of the clergy were assured to be strong supporters of the government, in fact they were bound to it by oath. Under the revoltuion the Church and the State had been seperated, in fact religion had been oppressed howewer Napoleons reforms concerning religion were mostly liberal and perfectly fitted with the idea of equality and liberty Although Napoleon used religion as a form of propaganda to increase his popularity and to prevent the rise of any future opposition his policies mentioned above were in line with revolutionary ideas.

One crucial policy, concerning freedom of speech clearly showed that he did not fully followed revolutionary aims. In 1810 he set up a regular system of censors. Books, plays, paintings, lectures and posters all had to be checked before publishing. Freedom of speech was of key importance and part of the revolutionary aims wherease Napoleon introduced censorship and also spread his own propaganda and was usually depicted as a hero-figure.Many of Napoleon’s policies within France were not regarded as being truly revolutionary, but it must be acknowledged that Napoleon’s main aim within France was to consolidate rather than to advance.

As Napoleon began to gain more and more power, he started to bring back memories from the Ancient Régime and salvery began to grow. To a certain extent Napoleon was following the revolutionary aims of 1789, he established a constitution, secured France financially, provided equality before the law, promoted social equality and careers were opened to talent. On the other hand some of his reforms were less liberal and less of a revolutioanry, he introduced censorship, created a new form of aristocracy, crowned himself emperor and therefore brought political inequality.

Conclusion

Rukha Salman

To what extent did the actions and policies of Louis XVI cause the outbreak, and affect the course, of the French Revolution until 1793?

The French Revolution (1789-1799) was one of the most important and radical social period in Europe History. The 1789 outbreak of the French Revolution was caused by many factors. Therefore it is very difficult to decite which one is the main one. According to Professor J. H. Shennan the most important problems were economic crisis and involvement in the American War of Independance. Another historian Gwynne Lewis focus on political and cultural issues such as the nature of absolutism and the role of the Church. However in this essay We are going to talk only about king‘s policies and actions that moght caused the outbreak of the French Revolution and how they affected the course of the revolution.

Louis XVI came to the throne in 1754. Although the country was squeezed out by the rule of the previous king, Louis XVI was still spending huge amounts on the luxury. France’s government was in financial crisis. Thus the king wanted to raise the taxes and to do that he needed the permission from the States-General. Therefore the States-General met at Versailles on May 5, 1789 (the last meeting was in 1614!). Contrary to the government the Third Estate had the demand of the abolition off all feudal dues, the ending of privileged exemption of nobles and clergy and other things that were written in the “cahiers”. Moreover there was the demand that king’s despotic powers had to be curbed. During the States-General meeting the handling with the Third State was not conformed. (The third State had to wait longer time in corridors of the meeting-place while nobles and clergy hadn’t). Moreover during several such conferences the Third State offered arrangements (Counting by heads that the resolutions would be fair) but Louis insisted on of voting by separate estates. It was the last straw in a glass. Louis extravagance. not listening to the cashiers and bad behaving with the Third State led to the outbreak of French Revolution.

Louis XVI actions and policies not only caused but also affected the course of the revolution. We can take as an example from just mentioned Louis XVI insistance to vote by separate estates. This action led to that the Third Estate declared themselves the National Assembly. Every Louis XVI action had a counteraction, by every action and policy he made the Revolution accelerate. Although the King was always late to make decisions.

Some King’s decisions even showed that he was undetermined and he did not have the features which were needed for kings. June 23, 1789 (against Necker advice) Louis XVI during royal session ordered three estates to meet separately, but the Third State did not withdraw . This action made by the Third State was big offense to the king , against his resistant of the National Assembly Louis did nothing. Thus led people feel more powerful and the authority of the king decreased. If the king would have positively reacted to the the National assembly and it’s goals, then the French Revolution might have ended there. Another action of the king that affected people was the king’s flight to Varennes.

By this action Louis XVI , according to Norman Davies, lost everything that were left, he shamefully was returned to Paris. He betrayed his own country by asking help.

Rukha Salman

Lack of good king features , slow speed in making decisions an by betraying his country Louis XVI affected the course of the French Revolution.

In conclusion, Louise decision to organize the States-General meeting and not taking attention to the whishes of the Third State are very likely to caused outbreak of the revolution. All kings actions and policy changed the course of the French revolution. If the king would have positively reactedto the changes, everything would be differently.

Why did the ancient regime collapse in 1789?

The causes to the collapse of the ancien regime can be divided into long-term causes and short-term causes. The long-term causes included the third estates constant battle with high taxes which led to starvation and also because of the impact Enlightenment. However the short-term causes consists of the Financial crisis where wars left France into a huge debt, the failure of the reform process, the political crisis and the economic crisis. All these factors had contributed to the explanation of the collapse of the anicen regime in 1789.

One of the main long term causes of the collapse of the ancien regime was the grievances of the third estate. When the people of France heard that the Estates General was to be held they quickly took the opportunity to express their grievances with the state of affairs within France. The citizenry compiled their grievances in Cahiers. The third estate economic grievances were mainly about taxation. They had to pay tax but the first and second estate didn't have to which the felt so unfair and Therefore wanted to make taxes equal. They wanted to abolish indirect taxes and want fair pricing on goods as the price of bread was so expensive that there wasn't enough money left to buy other things. Taxes took between 5 and 10 per cent of the peasants income. The impact on the third estate by taxation was so bad that they couldn't even afford food such as bread and wine and unemployment was rising at the same time as the cost of living therefore most had to lives of the streets. As a result of the economic crisis, the polarization and the starvation, the politicisation of the majority of the third estate began. This shows that the grievances led to the collapse of the ancien regime as these grievances led to people wanting a change in class system.

Another grievance is that the Estates General don't meet that frequently. The third estate felt that they should meet every 3 years to express their grievances particularly on taxes. This is the most important because it is the only way they get to make known their problems and lobby for a change. Also traditionally, each order would vote as a group have one vote; which meant that the First and Second Estates could outvote the Third Estate two to one. The Nobles rejected the Third's Estates demands, all these grievances and oppression led to the formation of the National Assembly and later the Tennis Court Oath where “All members of this assembly shall here and now take a solemn oath never to abandon the Assembly and to go on meeting wherever it has to until the Constitution of the Realm is set up.” This led to the dismantling of the anicen regime as the formation of the Nation Assembly and the tennis court oath was a direct challenge to the authority of the king and would promise to stand until all their grievances were solved as they felt they now represented the whole Nation. The Nation Assembly

Rukha Salman

had a crucial role in ending the ancien regime as they created the August Decrees which led to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The August Decrees were very important in starting the process of dismantling the ancien regime as they marked the end of noble power and the privilege of birth by establishing a society based on civil equality. Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen condemned the practices of the ancien regime and outlined the rights of citizens, as demanded in the cahiers of all three orders. Thus leading to the dismantling of the ancien regime.

Another long-term cause is the enlightenment. The Enlightment was a intellectual movement of writers and thinkers. The most famous philosophes were Voltaire, Montesqieu and Rosseau. These philosophes challenged and undermined the position of the church, with these revolutionary ideas attacking all the assumptions on which the ancien regime was based on they infuenced many who became revolutionaries. It made many more aware of politics and join to take action to change the way of life enforced on them. Also in 1789 there was another event that made influenced people to raise questions about the acien regime. This is when there was increasing spread of pamphlets in France, one of the most influential was Sieyes which was named “what is the third estate?”. The increasing popularity of Sieyes led to him representing the Third Estate of Paris in the Estates-General where he also drew up the tennis court oath and contributed to the declaration of the Rights of man. He expressed the grievances of the third estate and influenced third estate to demand for change which led to the collapse of the ancien regime.

However a short-term cause of the collapse of the ancien regime was the Financial crisis. By far the huge deficit that the government was building up. It was anticipated that for 1789, receipts would amount to only 325 million livres and that the interest payment on the deficit would amount to 63 per cent of the receipts. One of the reasons to explain why there was a deficit was taxes, the crown was not receiving much of the money collected in taxes and until it recovered control of its finances, no basic reforms could be carried out. Another reason was the huge amounts of money spent on wars such as the war of Austrian Succession (1740-8), the Seven Years War (1756-63) and the American War of Independence (1778-83).The American War of Independence in particular allowed French soldiers who had fought in this war to be exposed to ideas such as liberty and democracy and many demanded similar rights for the people of France. This huge debt was one of the short-term causes of the collapse of the ancien regime.

Necker and Callone unsuccessfully proposed to revise the French tax system to tax the nobles. Such measures encountered consistent resistance from the parlement. This was because the parlement was mostly made out of nobility which they refused to pay taxes and wanted to keep their priveleges. This unwillingness from the first and second estate to change the taxation system in order to keep their privileges led to the collapse of the ancien regime as action and change could no happen unless the first and second estate agreed to it. This led to the dismissal of Necker which inspired a large-scale popular demonstrations against the King. The population of Paris feared that this marked the start of Louis attempt to restore his power by means of force. This kind of thinking led to the Storming of the Bastille which was a significant event that led to the dismantling of the ancien regime because Louis had to share his power with the National Assembly who were prepared to draw up a constitution. Also the news of the fall of the Bastille spread through France and intensified activity among the peasantry. Thus contributing to the dismantling of the ancien regime.

Rukha Salman

Once reform was attempted from 1787, the political crisis was created. This shows that the Parlement were very uncooperative in trying to solve the debt especially if it means being taxed themselves and losing privileges. The crisis also showed the limitations of royal power. Although Louis was in effect an Absolute ruler, in reality he was unable to impose his government's reforms on the State. The forces of opposition detected clear signs of weakness in the Crown. This was one of the factors to the cause of the collapse of the ancient regime.

These problems were all compounded by a great scarcity of food in the 1780s which was a economic crisis. Different crop failures in the 1780s caused these shortages, raising the price of bread. The two years previous to the revolution saw bad harvests (1788, 1789), which obviously hurt the lives of the peasantry. When the price of bread rose by 88 per cent in 1789, it was cause for popular uprising. The peasantry became a class with the ambition to counteract social inequity and put an end to food shortages. The 'bread riot' evolved into a central cause of the French Revolution. Also production and employment in the textile industries, which accounted for half half of industrial production, fell by 50 per cent in 1789. The peasantry suffered doubly from the economic and agricultural problems. The economic crisis created a dangerously unstable situation and contributed to the emergence of a 'popular movement'. Protests among workers and small traders were directed against the government because of its inability to deal with the economic crisis. This led to significant event of the march of women and the October days. Following the October days the Assembly issued a decree that changed the title and status of the monarch, from 'King of France and Navarre' to 'Louis, by the grace of god and the constitutional law of the state, King of the French'. This is significant because it shows the shift in the balance of power towards Paris and its increasingly politicized population as Louis was now subordinate to the law, and his subjects now became citizens. Thus leading to the dismantling of the ancient regime.

In conclusion, the long-term causes especially the grievances of the third estate led to the collapse of the ancient regime because it was these grievances that made the third estate more involved in politics and cause the setting up of the National Assembly which created the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The short-term causes such as financial crisis, political crisis, economic crisis led to the events such as the October days, March of women and the Storming of the Bastille which contributed significantly to the collapse of the ancient regime. This is because it led to jornees which attacked the ancient regime and the king. Therefore both long-term causes and short-term causes led to the collapse of the ancient regime.

Rukha Salman

Russian Revolutions

Tsarism collapsed primarily as a consequence of Russia’s involvement in WWI. To what extent do you agree?

In a 1905 essay, Lenin dismantled the well-established Russian doctrine of “Oneness of the Tsar and the People, and of the People and the Tsar” . He may have then re-configured it under equally partisan Marxist class terms, but he had addressed a menacing development in Russian society: the alienation of the Tsar from his people. This was caused by the Tsar’s refusal to adapt to a rapidly changing Russian Empire, thus creating serious social and political grievances. World War One exacerbated these grievances to the point at which they overpowered all loyalty to the Tsar and destroyed the monarchy. There is a question as to whether the war destroyed Tsarism or merely accelerated its destruction. This debate hinges on the situation immediately before war was declared. Some historians, such as Steve Smith , argue that the war was the primary reason for the Tsar’s downfall. They reason, with an optimist’s perspective, that by 1914 Russia was beginning a slow process of Westernisation, bringing it greater stability and protecting the monarchy. On the other hand more pessimistic historians, such as Steve Wright , believe that movements ignored by the Tsar had already ensured his fall from power, that the war was merely a catalyst or even, some argue, delayed Tsarism’s inevitable collapse.

On the optimist’s side, there were signs that Russia was slowly becoming more stable before the war ruined all the progress made. The economy was one of the fastest growing in Europe, with an annual growth rate of 6%; Russia would have looked forward to a robust industrial economy in less than a decade. Consequently, employment and living standards would have improved. This would have placated political opposition, reduced the number of strikes and strengthened the security of the monarchy. Thus, Tsarism had a good chance of survival if the industrial boom continued. The war, however, checked any possibility of this as the economy heaved and inflation rose. Living standards deteriorated as food and fuel, used up by the army, came into short supply. Add to this the grief incurred, especially among the conscripted peasant population, by 4 million military deaths in the first year of war, and no wonder opposition to the Tsar climaxed. Optimists would therefore argue that the war was the primary reason for the downfall of Tsarism, as it reversed the process which could have saved it.

However, the stability of Russia in 1914 must not be overestimated, and the war did not create the issues which were to overcome the monarchy. The economy was growing, but was not on par with the other great European nations such as Britain, France and Germany. Living conditions were still poor. The rapid industrial growth caused problems as it enlarged the working class and drew labourers from the countryside, putting strain on antiquated urban infrastructure and overstretching farmers. This countered any improvement in the standard of living brought about by a stronger economy. The political situation was also uneasy: the number of people who took strike action in 1914 was the highest it had been since 1905. The backdrop was flammable. Russia may have been stabilising, but it was not yet stable enough to withstand war. The war therefore served to aggravate problems which were already present, and its importance is diminished. What is more, whether war had happened or not, Tsarism was being torn apart by its own struggle.

The problems which the Tsar faced had been mostly brought upon himself before there was even a suggestion of war. His incompetence was characterised by a haughty despotism which damaged his prestige and antagonised both his opponents and supporters. Throughout his reign, Tsar Nicholas II had increasingly lost touch with his people. On his orders, Cossack guards brutally repressed the 1905 revolution, memorialised as ‘Bloody Sunday’, and the 1912 Lena goldfields protests. Suddenly, people

Rukha Salman

discovered that their leader was not the benevolent idol they had previously adored, but a ruthless official determined to keep order. His most grave mistake was when he took over full control of the armed forces in August 1915. When the army continued to be defeated, Russians lost all sense of a protective, shrewd, paternal Tsar and it gave them an excuse to criticise him. By the time rumours of Rasputin’s sexual shenanigans in the royal court started spreading, along with rumours of the unpopular Alexandra’s interference in royal affairs, it simply confirmed people’s distrust in the Tsar. Loss of prestige was important because prestige was something relied heavily upon by such obsolescent, despotic regimes to keep largely illiterate populations under control. Its loss played straight into the hands of the political opposition such as the Bolsheviks, an alarming trend which was already strong before war was declared.

The Tsar’s despotism was most clearly seen in his dealing with calls to reform, and here is where he planted the seeds of unrest. In 1905 he was forced, reluctantly, to introduce a limited constitution, a parliament and legalise trade unions. This tempted liberals, who unsuccessfully demanded more. However, over the following ten years he tried to reverse these concessions. The Fundamental Laws immediately rebuffed the October Manifesto and Order No. 1 gave the Tsar power of veto over the Duma, itself stymied by Tsarist conservatives. This conservative reaction drew the resentment of the left and offered them ammunition to argue with. Sooner or later the issues would have been raised again regardless of whether war broke out or not.

In many respects, Tsarism was doomed anyway because it could not adapt. Before long, and especially with an enlarging proletariat, calls for a more representative parliament or more liberal constitution would have threatened the monarchy. The best way for Nicholas II to deal with such demands would have been to prevent future unrest by granting them, but this would have weakened Tsarism. In order to exist, Tsarism had to prevent reform. But early 20th Century Russia was gripped in a whirlwind of change, and expected the government to adjust itself accordingly. Resolute Tsarism thrived in conservative, repressive conditions, the opposite of what was developing in Russia, which is why World War One was inconsequential as far as the result is concerned. It may have rushed the Tsar’s collapse, but did not create any new problems.

‘God bless the Tsar!’ sang crowds outside the Winter Palace on the announcement of war in August 1914. Such patriotism had been standard practice under so many years of Tsarist autocracy, the natural reaction to a national event. But this hopeful display of unity was, like the Tsar himself, an anachronism from the past. Beneath the surface lay a rift between the Tsar and his people, one which the Emancipation Act of 1861 had cracked open, and one which was being stretched apart by numerous social and political grievances. The rift did not seem beyond repair in 1914, but it could not have been bridged by anything other than the weakening of Tsarism, something which Nicholas II refused to allow. His intransigence was both a personal quality and an inherent feature of the Tsar monarchy, relying on autocracy for its survival. Russia was therefore heading in only one direction in 1914, because the nature of Tsarism would have prevented any sort of recovery even if total war had not occurred. World War One shattered Tsarism, but could only do so because Tsarism itself was so brittle.

Rukha Salman

How far was Nicolas ll personally responsible for the problems of the Tsarist regime in Russia?

It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia

Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.

Nicholas 2's firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)"(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people".

In his early manhood Nicholas lived the life of an idle socialite uninterested in the affairs of state, he found government meetings 'boring' and uninteresting. As he had never taken a liking to political affairs he was underprepared to take the throne, this fact along -with his stubborn belief in autocracy- also goes a long way to explain his political naivete in many of the difficult situations he faced. Was this unwillingness to face the political realities due to him being blinded be his obstinate belief in autocracy or was it just that he was politically naïve?

Throughout his rule as discontent rose Nicholas still believed that he still had the support of all his people save for a couple of 'undesirables'. In a sense he was living in an alternate political reality. An example of his political naivete was the 1905 revolution that nearly toppled the regime. Before this there had been enormous changes to the composition of the upper-class; the nobles-traditional upper-class- had lost a lot of their power and influence. The new upper-class of bankers, merchants and intelligentsia wanted reform to the system of government, the creation of a parliament (Duma). But Nicholas, blind to the threat of a united elite and lower class-they were already protesting over shocking working conditions- wanting reform refused demands, as a result Nicholas' government nearly fell and if not for the shrewd political maneuvering of Minister Segius Witte certainly would have. The October Manifesto gave basic civil liberties and a Duma with limited powers. This example illustrates that Nicholas was not of weak character but was politically naïve.

His fatal decision to go to the front to command Russian troops in WW1 proved to be a catalyst for the revolution, he left behind him in Petersburg his wife Alexandra and the mysterious 'man of god' Rasputin. Alexandra was deeply attached to Rasputin as he had the power to hypnotize and heal her hemophiliac son Alexis when he was bleeding. As Alexandra had a lot of power when Nicholas was away Rasputin was able to influence her to the extent that he was appointing ministers and incredibly incompetent ones at that. The only criterion was that the ministers should support Rasputin.

Rukha Salman

The fact that Alexandra and Rasputin were interfering so much in government matters led to Nicholas' support fading among the nobles, officials and army generals. They saw a tsar who had let a couple of incompetent people run the government. This was probably a weakness in character for Nicholas that he had let Rasputin, through Alexandra wield so much power. But Rasputin was an incredibly cunning man and was able to do something special to Alexis so was it weakness in character on Nicholas' part or was it that Rasputin was so smart and cunning that he couldn't be stopped.

Through the final years Nicholas managed to alienate most of his traditional supporters in the upper class. They wanted reform and the tsar refused to create a popular government. This can also be seen as an example of his political naivete, he didn't realize the true magnitude of the situation. If he had managed to keep a united upper-class the 1917 revolution might have been avoided. His ultra-conservative outlook prevented the emergence of a stable middle class and a liberal type government.

There were other very big factors that contributed to the revolution that the tsar had little to do with. There were massive socio-economic changes taking place some of which led to the recomposition of the upper-class (intelligentsia, merchants etc) and an urban bourgeoisie. It created a new class of factory workers, the urban working class, mostly peasants moved to the city, and who now worked in shocking conditions. With the outbreak of WW1 the Russian economy had to produce everything itself after Turkey entered the war on the German side cutting off the last realistic trade route, this led to food shortages which contributed to the growing discontent among workers who were already deeply anti-government. Nicholas did make the decision to go to war which can be seen as a catalyst for accentuating discontent but it was not weakness of character, just politically naïve. Anyway Russia could have been dragged into the war for other reasons later on.

The fall of the Russian Empire was a result of a complex web of factors. The ultra-conservatism and political naivete of Tsar Nicholas 2 greatly contributed to the fall, as did the huge socio-economic changes, modernization/industrialization of the period. However I don't believe that Nicholas had a weak character, he was a man who stuck steadfastly to his views however wrong for the time they might have been. It was his character not weakness of character along with many other complicated factors that helped bring about the fall of the Russian Empire

Rukha Salman

How did Lenin and the Bolshevisks seize power of the Russia Empire in 1917?

They were able to do this as a result of taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Through such decisions as disbanding the army, and siding with the majority, the peasants, though such promises as land, food, equality and peace. Through such events Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin, was able to take full control for the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks started off, in 1903, as the main minority of the Social Democratic Labour Party. As all anti-tsarist groups the party was illegal. The party was based upon the beliefs of Karl Marx, a german writer and revolutionary, who believed a revolution could only be started within the workforce of the major cities. Lenin believed strongly in these morlas and used them as a guide to his goal of revolution.

The party continued to prostest against the current government in Russia and over time the political, social and economic disontent and the famous event know as 'Bloody Sunday', where the imperial guards shot and killed the protesting people of St.Petersburg, eventually pulled more followers over to the party.

After these events, which were known as the 1905 revolutuon, the October Manifesto occured. This gave the people a lot more rights and a national parliament, the Duma. All seemed well, but there was one problem. The Menshiviks, who were the less radical majority of the Social Democratic Labour Party, argued that the revolution had gone far enough, however the Bolsheviks insisted that it go further until a new, soviet state was established. Thus, the party split up and formed two seperate groups. Also, since the revolution hadn't worked, many of the revolution's leaders, such as Lenin, were forced to go into exile abroad.

During his time in Switzerland, in exile, Lenin wrote his thoughts in his revolutionary newspaper, "Pravda". Through this Lenin was able to show his supporters their mistakes in the first revolution and what they needed to do for a second one to work. These ideas helped the Soviets organise themselves better, which paved the way for 1917.

Even with the new reforms the Tsarist govenment made, it wasn't good enough for the people of Russia. Further discontent spread through out the country and in 1917 the second revolution occured. Compared with the first revolution in 1905, this was massive. The Tsar, Nicolas II, was forced to abdicate, russia became a republic under the control of a liberal government. This was not to be the last revolution though.

In April, 1917, Lenin returned home. As soon as he arrived he began organising the Bolshevik opposition towards the newly founded parliament. Although not extremely popular at the time, Lenin's excellent oranisation, and promises of a better life gained him more and more support. Soon he was joined in his effort by Trotsky, a former menshivik, who helped him organise the movement.

Lenin thought his chance had come in July. There was an uprising against the government and the Bolsheviks took advantage of the situation and supported the protesters. In the end though, the uprising was suppressed and many Bolsheviks, including trotsky were imprisoned. Again, Lenin left for overseas.

While Lenin was hiding out in Finland the head of the provisional goverment tried to win more support by resigning and placing Kernsky as the new prime minister of a new government, maily made up of menshiviks and social revolutionaries. This satisfied the people at first, but soon the armed forces tried to overthrow Kerensky. Worried, Kerensky turned to the Bolsheviks for support. He released bolshevik prisoners and gave them much power. This enabled the Bolsheviks to start taking control. Realising

Rukha Salman

another chance had came, Lenin wrote to his comrades, telling them to organise a second revolution.

In October the second revolution worked. Lenin came back from Finland and organised, with Trotsky, the new plan to take control. Trotsky organised a small army and stormed the Winter Palace, home to the weakening Kerensky goverment. The Bolsheviks then captured Moscow and were in basic control of Russia.

Although Lenin had control he wasn't completely supported by the people of Russia. To gain support Lenin made a secret police force, which was in charge of erasing any opposition to the party. The Bolsheviks were also renamed the Communists. Freedom of press was cancelled, unless you supported the Communist cause. The government took control of all ways of life. Lenin also made peace with the germans as he knew if war continued, the revolution wouldn't fully work. Although some were angery with the losses Russia had in the treaty, the Bolsheviks were in control, though it was not a steady form of control. There was still widespread opposition and soon a civil war broke out.

Straight after the Treaty of brest-Litovsk was signed, a civil war broke out. This war was between the communists ( Reds ) and the anti-communists ( Whites ). This war lasted for 3 years from 1918 - 1921. At first the Reds had little land and were close to being demolished by the Whites. But as a result of Trotsky's excellent leadership the communists, by 1921, ran most of the country.

As a result of oppositional weakness, presise leadership and planning Lenin and trotsky were able to have the revolution they had waited for for so long. Russia was now a communist state under the contol of Lenin. This communist rule would last until the early nighnties. It was one of the most, if not the most, important events that shaped Russia's and the U.S.S.R.'s history.

Conclusion

Rukha Salman

How significant were the effects of 1905 Revolution on Russian government and society at the time?

The 1905 Revolution was significant to Russian government in long run but not in short run. After investigating into the contemporary sources which focus on different people’s opinions towards the Revolution and changes brought about by it, I found that there were general agreements on the following views. Firstly, the 1905 Revolution did brought changes to the practice of Russian government; however, as it did not bring an end to the autocratic regime in Russia, the short term the effects of the Revolution was not significant. In long run, the Revolution significantly aroused people’s anger towards the Tsar, and we can even argue that it provoked the 1917 Revolution, and arguably, it changed the whole system of government and political structure of Russia, so the long term significance of the revolution to Russian government was more remarkable. Secondly, we could doubt the effects of the Revolution on Russian society. It brought freedom to the people through the October Manifesto, but it is questionable whether it changed the Russians’ life significantly.

Politically, the short term significance of the effects of the 1905 Revolution was not remarkable. The 1905 Revolution brought changes to the political structure of Russia; however, its significance was usually over exaggerated by historians. The Revolution brought about was the first broad based challenge to Tsardom. It exposed people’s hidden anger to the Tsar and organized into an armed revolution which aimed to overthrown the Tsarist government. Alan Wood suggested that the events of the 1905 Revolution such as the Bloody Sunday was the first revolutionary disturbance which forced the Tsar to authorize the holding of elections for a consultative and legislative national assembly. Peter Waldron shared similar views and suggested that the Revolution was significant in reminding the Tsar the existence of ordinary citizens in society and lead to the establishment of the October Manifesto which brought political power to ordinary citizens in an elitist autocratic tsarist regime.

The October Manifesto established on 17th October, 1905 stated clearly that an elected legislative body (Duma) would be established, under which no legislations could become law without the approval of Duma. These illustrated the short term significance of the effects of the 1905 Revolution to Russian’s government, because election was introduced for the first time in history, Russia was moving towards a modern constitutional government. People in Russia were finally being given some political power. Another effect brought by the 1905 Revolution was the wide spread of disorder, it posed significance to Russian government, because arguably it could be considered as an attempt to put an end to the autocratic regime. An extract from the workers’ petition presented to the Tsar on 22nd January, 1905, stated the workers’ demand for ‘any right to speak, to think, to assemble, to discuss our needs, or to take measures to improve our conditions’ and they would ‘left their work...would not resume work until they meet their demands and showed that there were many workers involved in the Revolution; they would strike until the government granted them basic human rights, the rights to choose their own representative and reasonable wages. This implied that people were resistance to autocratic rule, and demanded for representation in the system of government.

However, the workers’ petition only showed people’s demand in improving their living conditions and rights, the workers may not have any intentions to overthrow Tsardom. Historian Michael Lynch supported this view; he highlighted that fact that the workers had planned a peaceful march to Winter Palace. Their intention was to present a loyal petition to the tsar, begging him to relieve their desperate condition. The fact that the presentation of the workers petition turned into Bloody Sunday, was caused by the inability of the police force to deal with such numerous unarmed petitioners, thus we doubt the short term significance of the Revolution to Russian government. However, historian Han Rogger argued that the fact that a peaceful petition of the workers was turned into a massacre had destroyed the traditional

Rukha Salman

image of the Tsar as their “Little Father”, thus provoked resistance towards Tsardom. So from this aspect, in long term, the 1905 Revolution was significant to Russian government at the time.

Furthermore, Nicholas II wrote, “There have been serious disorders in St. Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city” once again implied the political and social instability brought by the 1905 Revolution and its attempts to put an end to autocracy. Thus, the Revolution was significant as an attempt to overthrow Tsardom. However, in the later part of his diary, he wrote “Mama arrived from town, straight to church. I lunched with all others”, showed that Nicholas II did not understand the needs of the Russians. He went to have a walk and have lunch, after such a painful massacre demonstrated that the Revolution did not pose any threat to the Tsar. However, the fact that the diary entry showed “there were many killed and wounded” by the troops during the petition, damaged Nicholas II’s reputation, and formed a political force against the regime, and the fact that many people went to protest in St. Petersburg showed that Russians were generally becoming more critical to the regime in long run.

Sergei Witte’s letter to Nicholas II backed up the above evidence and showed us clearly that “The government must be ready to proceed along constitutional lines”, as it was the only solution to ease people’s anger brought about by the 1905 Revolution, so arguably, the establishment of the Russian Constitution, which was a very significant step of political modernization, was a direct outcome of the Revolution. However, the secondary work of Orlando Figes pointed that Witte had a very liberal political view, which he personally in favour of a democratic political system. The Witte’s letter could only present subjective and liberal views.

A diary entry written by Nicholas II on 19th October, 1905, about the October manifesto, he wrote ‘There was no other way out but to cross oneself and give what everyone was asking for’ once again backed up the above ideas, and showed us clearly that there was no choice for Nicholas II to install stability to Russia after the 1905 Revolution, but to established a constitution and a State Duma. These illustrated that the short term significance of the Revolution to Russian government. After all the 1905 Revolution did directly brought a constitutional government to Russia. However, the above arguments illustrate by Nicholas II diary entry could only showed the views of the Tsar. As the Tsar was force to give away some of his power to the Duma, he would obviously consider himself as the victim of the Revolution. Thus it was questionable whether Nicholas II really gave the Russians “what everyone was asking for”.

Historian Alexander Chubarov suggested that Nicholas II did not intentionally want to grant the people power of franchise, he did not intentionally want to establish the October Manifesto and he half-heartedly adopted those policies stated in the October Manifesto and thus ineffective. When drawing up the fundamental laws in early 1906, the Tsar did all he could to limit the powers of Duma. The law stated that “The Sovereign Emperor enjoys the legislative initiative in all legislative matter.” Showed that the continuation of the Tsar’s power in the legislature after the 1905 Revolution. In addition, the electoral system discriminated heavily on peasants; elections were indirect and were cast by curios which set up by separate constituencies. Thus the Tsar remained powerful and government workings largely remained the same after 1905 Revolution.

Nicholas II’s wrote a diary entry on 3rd November, 1905, ‘I will never trust that man (Witte) again with the smallest thing’, it expose his private thoughts of distrust and hatred towards Witte. Nicholas II hatred towards Witte, the one who came up with the idea regarding the establishment of a Russian constitution, implied that the October Manifesto undermined his absolute power thus showed us his unwillingness to reform Russia. He failed to realize the importance of constitutional element toward the stability of Russia. This showed the 1905 Revolution could not even bring the intension to the Tsar to change the system of government. Another diary entry of Nicholas II written on 19thOctober, 1905, supported the above view, it

Rukha Salman

also additionally highlighted that the Tsar ‘had no one to rely on except honest Trepov’. The diary entries written by Nicholas II was a reliable source showing his trust, loyalty and reliance on Trepov, who was a strongly conservative anti-reformist and showed Nicholas II strong believe in autocracy, because his diary entries were private documents which could demonstrate what he truly believed in.

It was clear that the effects of 1905 Revolution to Russian government was insignificant; as the head of state, the Tsar, was still highly depend on the advice of a powerful anti-reformist, autocracy remained and there were distrust and hatred between major personnel who controlled the policy, Witte and Nicholas II. Admittedly, you may argue that Nicholas II’s trust and hatred to Trepov and Witte respectively may not affect the significance of the effects of the 1905 Revolution to Russia Government, as the successfulness of the October Manifesto was not solely depend on the Tsar. However, Alan Wood suggested that Russia remained as an autocratic regime under which Nicholas II still had absolute autocracy, despite the establishment of the October Manifesto and Duma, and indeed, the decision of the Tsar determined the success or failure of the October Manifesto.

In addition, Leon Trotsky wrote in the newspaper Izvestia comments about the political conditions in November 1905, mentioning there were ‘Cossack whip wrapped up the constitution’. This indicates that the 1905 Revolution didn’t grant people real power. ‘Police hooligan Trepov’ and ‘liberal mediator Witte’ were controlling the constitution. If Duma introduced legislation which contradicted the supreme power of the Tsar, the Tsar could simply resolve Duma. Thus illustrate there were still no scrutiny on the Tsar’s power. Thus the significance of the effects of the 1905 Revolution to Russian Government was limited; the establishment of the October Manifesto were simply a solution to stop disorder immediately. You may argue that Trotsky’s ideas were subjective and extreme; he only represented the ideas of the revolutionary minorities and Izvestia was a newspaper which only showed the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party views. Thus the comments of Trotsky on Izvestia were very questionable.

It was obvious that government had no intention to change the system of government and grant people political power in long run, thus reinforce my argument that the effect of 1905 Revolution was not significant on Russian government at that time. However, the anger of the people provoked by the 1905 Revolution could be considered as the catalyst of the 1917 Revolution which actually put an end to autocracy to Russia. An articlewritten by Lenin on Vperyod mentioned the slogan of “"Death or freedom!" is reverberating throughout Russia. Events are developing with astonishing rapidity. The general strike in St. Petersburg is spreading. All industrial, public and political activities are paralysed.” which showed that the 1905 Revolution was only the start of the Russian Revolution and they would not forget the lesson of Bloody Sunday and would continue to go against autocracy. So from this aspect , despite the fact that 1905 Revolution did not bring immediate change to the government of Russia, it actually indirectly brought about the greatest transfer of political power in the Russian history within 20 years time. However, the fact that Vperyod was an underground newspaper of the Bolsheviks, and we could believe that Lenin used Vperyod to raise the momentum of the Bolsheviks during the Revolution, thus this source only reflect minority views in Russian society.

S.J.Lee suggest that, another significant effect of the 1905 Revolution on Russian government was that it led to the official establishment of political parties. Political parties were major sources of opposition against autocratic Tsarist regime. Lenin, Stalin who was the leaders of the 1917 Russian Revolution, start gaining public profiles and supports through the Bolshevik Party. Political parties, with good organizations and legitimate power in Duma, with great ambitions to seize power, were determined to overthrow Tsardom. Lenin clearly outlined in his book What is to be done, ‘we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there’ which showed his desire to call for insurrection and seizure of power. The creation of political parties was significant in paving a way for the collapse of the tsarist regime. However, in reality, the Tsarist regime kept control of the army and workers were repressed after 1905 Revolution.

Rukha Salman

The government crushed the widespread of mass revolts. Even though, the political parties did arouse people anger, and cause instability in society after the Revolution, autocracy remained. Alan Wood also commented that “The form of government still remained as absolute autocracy” The Tsar had the power to dissolve Duma and abolish the constitution. S.J.Lee’s secondary work backed up Alan Wood’s idea; he commented Duma as “a parliament with party but with no scope for party politics” Thus illustrate that political parties and Duma did not had real power in hands, they could not scrutinized the government. You may argue that the significance of the effect of 1905 Revolution to Russian government was limited, but failure to overthrow the Tsarist government in 1905 inspired Lenin, that mass revolt without effective organizations would not have any effect to overthrow Tsardom, a successful revolution could only be achieved by small, disciplined and well-organized parties. Lenin was inspired to unite the proletariats and installed the Bolsheviks party with the above quality, and thus we can say that the 1905 Revolution significantly inspired Lenin and the Bolsheviks to overthrow Tsardom and indirectly lead Russia turned into a socialist state, thus in long run its significance to Russian government was remarkable.

Socially, the 1905 Revolution brought a better balance of power between the people and the government. ‘Fundamental civil freedoms will be granted to the population’ and ‘the elections that have already been scheduled” were stated in the October Manifesto. The Revolution brought Russia the October Manifesto, enhanced the rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Furthermore, the 1905 Revolution brought constitutional change to Russia demonstrated that even ordinary citizen had a power to make a difference in society, through expression of opinions in the revolts. By using tactics to destabilize the society, such as strikes and petty stealing from land owners, the peasants expressed grievances regarding their hard life. Such actions from the society significantly brought about government response and led to the establishment of Witte remortgage payment. Thus the standards of living of the peasants were improved. So from this aspect, the 1905 Revolution was significant to Russian’s society as it granted the people freedom and it also improve the livelihood of the peasants through the response of the peasants’ petition in Russia at the time.

However, Hans Roggers and S.J.Lee suggested that Nicholas broke his promise of introducing a Constitutional Monarchy, he published his own Fundamental Laws in 1906 which stated that the Tsar, “posses the supreme autocratic power” and the Tsar, not the Duma, appointed his ministers. The Tsar also retained the right to rule by decree, which means rule without Duma. The role of the people’s representative, Duma, was limited. People’s living was still under the control of the Tsar. And according to the Memoirs of Count Witte, “The Manifesto was a bolt from the blue” as “most provincial authorities did not understand what was happening” and thus, “Violent outbreaks -- both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary -- took place all over the country”, it was clear that the 1905 revolution did not improve people’s living. However, the fact that Witte made such comments may because “the document was drafted against my will and behind my back”. But after the 1905 Revolution, revolts, strike still broke out everywhere, people still yield for improvement in their living. There were even attempts on the lives of the members of the Imperial family and even government officials according to Felix Yusupov, which proved that after 1905 Revolution, the livelihood of the Russian peasants were not improved. Thus the significance of the effect of 1905 Revolution on Russian society was limited.

Overall, politically, its short term significance were very limited, it did brought Duma into the government structure but the role of Duma was override the autocratic Tsar. However, the long term significance was more remarkable as it was the “First Blood” in Russia and contributed to the development of the 1917 Revolution which overthrew Tsardom. As for Russian society, it did not change people’s way of living, hardships continued in Russians’ live, and thus the effect of 1905 Revolution was not significant to Russian society.

Rukha Salman

Role of Trotsky - Trosky’s contribution( as required by syllabus see page 4, theme 5 and point 4)

Leon Trotsky: proletarian revolutionary, Marxist theorist, ruthless military leader, exile, prolific writer and force for opposition. Left and right wing historians have long debated Trotsky’s role in the Soviet Union in the period 1917-1940. Isaac Deutscher praises Trotsky as a pragmatic revolutionary prophet and committed Marxist theorist whose leadership was usurped by the manipulations of Stalin. Conversely, Richard Pipes condemns Trotsky as a brutal fanatic, an inept politician and an ineffectual exile.

The reliability of both these historians is limited by their political perspectives. Pipes has a strong anti-Communist bias, and as delegates attending a Socialist Scholars Conference wrote: “No one familiar with Professor Pipes’s career and opus could have expected of him anything but a diatribe against Trotsky”. Similarly, there is little doubt that Deutscher’s opinion is clouded by his Marxist ideals and his past as an active Trotskyist.

Trotsky’s career may be divided into four key phases: revolutionary, military leader, politician and exile.

Between 1917 and 1922, Trotsky played a revolutionary role. After becoming a Bolshevik in July 1917, Trotsky was arrested for organising the ‘July Days’, a premature Bolshevik attempt to seize power. When released to help defend Petrograd against the Kornilov coup in August, he was instrumental in coordinating the actions of the Petrograd Soviet. He was elected chairman in September, once the Bolsheviks had gained overall control. Trotsky sided with Lenin against Zinoviev and Kamenev when the Bolshevik Central Committee discussed an uprising against the Provisional Government. He persuaded Lenin to wait until the end of October to coincide with the Congress of Soviets, allowing the Bolsheviks to claim they were adhering to their principle of “All Power to the Soviets”. Trotsky led the Military Revolutionary Committee in the insurrection on 24-25 October, with Red Guards assuming control over the city and Winter Palace.

Historians disagree over Trotsky’s role in the October insurrection. Pipes argues that Trotsky was not the leader of a popular revolution, as Deutscher asserts, but the megalomaniacal coordinator of a classic coup d’etat whose “sole concern was holding on to power”. Furthermore, he attributes the success of the revolution to Lenin rather than Trotsky. Deutscher, however, challenges this view, writing that the insurrection was “carried out according to Trotsky’s, not Lenin’s plan”.

Overall, we can deduce that Trotsky was a key leader in the insurrection, the revolutionary strategy being essentially his conception. With Lenin in hiding and so unable to coordinate revolutionary forces, Trotsky played a more significant role as the chief organiser and driving force of the uprising.

During the Bolshevik consolidation of power, the transitional period from the tsarist order to new socialist order, a key Bolshevik objective was to secure peace. An armistice between Russia and Germany was signed in early December 1917 and Trotsky, as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, headed the Soviet delegation during the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations. Trotsky believed that the terms proposed by Germany were too harsh. He opted for a policy of “no war, no peace” and delayed signing, hoping for a socialist revolution in Germany. However, after nine weeks, the Germans lost patience and advanced into Russia. Upon Lenin’s insistence, an even harsher treaty was signed on 3 March 1918. Trotsky resigned from his position as Commissar for Foreign Affairs and refused to attend the final meeting.

Rukha Salman

Pipes deems Trotsky’s behaviour foolish and arrogant. He blames Trotsky for the “humiliating peace” that resulted, underlined by the Russian people’s dissatisfaction at the territory lost and the perceived surrender to Imperial Germany. By contrast, Deutscher claims that Trotsky’s motives in the negotiations were a prime example of his commitment to ideology and to ‘Permanent Revolution’. He also highlights the fact that Trotsky’s stalling brought the Bolsheviks crucial breathing space as they prepared to face domestic opposition in the lead up to the Civil War.

We can conclude that, while Trotsky remained unwavering in his pursuit of ideology, his resistance was ultimately not in Russia’s best interests. The treaty was denounced as a betrayal of the socialist revolution.

Trotsky’s second significant role was as military leader. During the Civil War (1918-20), Trotsky was Commissar of War and Chairman of the Supreme Military Council. As planner and supervisor of military operations, he transformed the Red Army from a network of small, independent detachments into a single, disciplined machinery of power.

Pipes argues that Trotsky’s role has been overplayed. He underlines Trotsky’s lack of military experience and asserts that “his strategic sense left… a great deal to be desired”. Pipes constructs Trotsky as a ruthless tyrant, comparing his brutality to that of Stalin’s. He points to the terroristic tactics used to instill discipline into the troops, and claims that such methods “exceeded in savagery anything known in the tsarist armies” . He also suggests that Trotsky abandoned his ideology in the quest for power. Certainly, Trotsky employed harsh disciplinary measures. He reintroduced the death penalty, enforced conscription, reinstated Tsarist officers as ‘military specialists’, restored hierarchy in the army and abolished soldiers’ committees. Pipes contends that Trotsky’s savagery is exemplified by his role in suppressing the Kronstadt mutiny of February 1921, which resulted in the death of 15,000 loyal communist soldiers.

By contrast, Deutscher depicts Trotsky as an extraordinary strategist who “founded a great army and guided it to victory”. Deutscher and Ronald Segal endorse Trotsky’s ruthlessness, arguing that, “regardless of cost”, the end justified the means. They claim that, ultimately, the preservation of the revolution was the imperative aim. Deutscher writes that, although Trotsky’s view was often challenged, he “was never to compromise over it or to yield an inch from it” , reinforcing his unwavering commitment to ideology. Deutscher also highlights the way in which Trotsky lifted the morale of the Red Army by travelling along the front in his personal armoured train, inspiring the troops with his revolutionary zeal and oratory powers.

We can conclude that, though Trotsky may have employed some vicious methods, he did so in preservation of his ideology and revolutionary ideals. Over the course of the Civil War, Trotsky proved himself to be a brilliant military leader and strategist who played a major role in attaining Red victory.

The third significant phase of Trotsky’s career was as a politician during the 1920s. With Lenin increasingly sidelined after 1922 due to ill health, Trotsky became tangled in a power struggle with Stalin. As Stalin’s influence grew, Trotsky’s declined as he became associated with an ‘opposition’ coalition.

In March 1923, Trotsky assured Kamenev he would support Stalin’s reappointment as General Secretary, an odd decision at such a critical juncture in his career. Deutscher credits Trotsky’s passivity to his “magnanimity” and “heroic character” . He writes that “Trotsky refrained from attacking Stalin because he felt secure… It seemed to Trotsky almost a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and sly but shabby and inarticulate man in the background, should be his rival” , suggesting that Stalin was incompetent and could not hope to equal Trotsky. Pipes, however, attributes Trotsky’s accommodating policy to “the

Rukha Salman

conviction that it was hopeless to challenge Stalin” , intimating that Stalin’s political capabilities outweighed those of Trotsky. These different interpretations illustrate key left and right wing views relating to Trotsky’s aptitude as a politician.

By the end of the decade, Stalin had emerged as the clear victor of the power struggle. Historians have formed different perspectives on why Trotsky lost power. Deutscher depicts Trotsky as “a fallen Titan” , a true revolutionary and genuine Leninist whose leadership of the Soviet was usurped by the megalomaniacal and opportunistic Stalin. In contrast, Pipes claims: “His defeat had nothing ennobling about it. He lost because he was outsmarted in a sordid struggle for political power” . Pipes sees Trotsky as a prime illustration of the defeated and embittered opponent. He points to Trotsky’s limited political acumen: his absence from Lenin’s funeral, for example, allowed Stalin to associate himself with the cult of Lenin. In addition, Trotsky’s opinions were unpopular: his idea of ‘Permanent Revolution’ and his left wing strategy of modernisation were both less patriotic and economically practical than Stalin’s ‘Socialism in one Country’ and ‘Urals-Siberian’ method of modernisation. Pipes also sees Trotsky’s personality as a key factor in his downfall: his arrogant manner, the force of his convictions and his inflexible ideological positions provoked fears of ‘Bonapartist’ ambitions.

Ultimately, although Trotsky was a key figure in the power struggle of the 1920s, he was outmanoeuvred by Stalin, who worked as a “grey blur” behind the scenes to cultivate personal loyalty. As a result, Trotsky’s role as one of the most influential figures in the Bolshevik Party was diminished.

The final phase of Trotsky’s career was as an exile. In 1925, Trotsky lost his positionas Commissar for War and his Politburo seat. In 1926, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev formed the left-wing United Opposition against Stalin, but this failed due to the ban on factionalism. In October 1927, Trotsky was removed from the Central Committee and on 14 November, was expelled from the Party. In 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata. He remained in exile until his assassination in Mexico on 20 August 1940 by a Stalinist agent.

Trotsky’s role from the late 1920s onwards changed from that of a pragmatic revolutionary to, firstly, a theoretical intellectual, and secondly, a force for opposition and a focus for the anti-Stalinist movement. The main vehicles for spreading his influence were his prolific writing, orations and organisations, all aiming to establish a new international movement based on revolutionary Marxism.

As a theoretical intellectual in exile, Trotsky formulated revolutionary ideology. He supported the dictatorship of the proletariat and perfected his theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’. In 1929, he created Bulletin of the Opposition, a journal focused on true communism. The International Left Opposition was established in 1930, and his Fourth International in 1938, socialist organisations that formed a base from which Trotsky could comment on Soviet and international developments.

Right-wing historians such as Pipes and Nikolai Berdyaev argue that Trotsky’s role as a theoretician was insignificant, as he was not truly committed to ideology and lacked a power base to make himself heard. Deutscher, however, sees Trotsky’s theories as a unique and invaluable analysis of the nature and practise of revolution. He claims that Trotsky “came forward as the legatee of classical Marxism and also of Leninism”, suggesting that the insights Trotsky attained in exile made him the rightful heir to Marx and Lenin.

On balance, we can deduce that Trotsky made an important contribution to revolutionary socialism and to the working class movement. The fact that the USSR banned his theoretical writings, and that most governments refused him entry into their countries, indicates that they feared his ideology of worldwide

Rukha Salman

revolution and the extent of his influence. This is testimony to the importance of his role as a theoretical intellectual.

During exile, Trotsky was also a force for opposition and a focus for anti-Stalinism. His contacts with Russia unbroken, Trotsky became known as ‘the pen’, using writing as an effective political weapon. In 1936, he published The Revolution Betrayed, an indictment of Stalin’s regime focusing on how Stalin had betrayed the original Bolshevik ideals. Trotsky criticised the repression, the estrangement between the government and proletariat and the entrenched privilege of Stalinist Russia, and campaigned for reduced bureaucratic control of the Communist Party.

Deutscher and Segal maintain that such vocal criticisms epitomise the way in which Trotsky spoke “for the power of the people”. Deutscher claims that Trotsky became “the symbol and sole mouthpiece of opposition to Stalin” . Furthermore, he argues that the fact that Stalin felt threatened enough by Trotsky to eradicate him from Soviet history and coordinate his assassination attests to his importance as a force for opposition. Conversely, Pipes claims that Trotsky’s criticisms stemmed from resentment over his own failures. He suggests that Trotsky’s writings are those of a “selfish schemer” attempting to destroy Party unity, undermine Stalin and regain lost power. Pipes asserts that Stalin’s compulsive need to downplay Trotsky’s role does not indicate Trotsky’s significance, but rather, has lent him undue importance.

Overall, we can conclude that Trotsky played a significant role as a force for opposition. He fuelled substantial worldwide opposition to Stalin’s regime and generated support around the globe. Although his geographical isolation and the inaccessibility of his writings to those living within the USSR meant that he was unable to instigate change within the Soviet Union itself, Trotsky remained an ongoing threat to Stalin’s regime and a permanent symbol of true Marxism for the people.

Trotsky’s role in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940 remains a period of fierce controversy. Pipes, a fervent anti-Communist, is decidedly prejudiced against Trotsky, while Deutscher, a Marxist, portrays him favourably. Yet, despite Deutscher’s bias, he is considered one of the greatest authorities on Trotsky, adding credibility to his arguments.

In conclusion, therefore, Trotsky played a significant role between 1917 and 1940: he led the 1917 October Revolution, was a brilliant military strategist during the Civil War, a capable politician during the 1920s and a theoretical intellectual and focus for anti-Stalinism whilst in exile. As such, Leon Trotsky spoke for the power of the people, against privilege, for the liberation of ideas and for the will to resist. His legacy lives on, and as Deutscher writes: “His deeds had shaken the world; and neither he nor the world could forget them.”

Rukha Salman

Asses the extent to which Tsar Nicholas II can be held personally responsible for the collapse of the Russian monarchy.

‘What weakened the Tsarist regime in the period before 1917 was not its tyranny but its incompetence’.

A small portion of Tsar Nicholas II’s downfall can be seen as his own accountability; however his autocratic ruling style, mixed with the inevitable disasters that were to come his way was a recipe for failure. Due to his natural ruling style inherited from his father Alexander, Nicholas Tsar was unwilling to reform to a nation urgent to modernise. One would say he is simply not a natural ruler, in a time where Russia depended greatly on one.

With an understanding of the type of person Nicholas was, we will look at the catastrophes that came his way; that being 1905 revolution, influencial personalities, his policies and implications that possibly added to his breakdown, opposition parties to the Tsar and how they contributed to his collapse, and World war I playing a major role in breaking down the regime for Nicholas, and how this whole culmination of occurrences throughout his reign ended the Romanov dynasty.

The first real challenge for Nicholas arose in 1905, and his ability to react effectively was about to be tested. Previous to the mayhem that was waiting to erupt, innocent civilians were over-flowing the jails. Police patrolled most of the streets of Russia. Peasants were in heavy debt, most not being able to pay off expensive mortgages, and the general public of Russia were disallowed political or religious expression. These factors painted a very bleak and violent picture of Russia at this time, mainly due to Nicholas’ repressive regime. On the 22nd January, Father Georgy Gapon, a priest, lead a peaceful march to Nicholas’ palace in St Pietersburg, in an attempt to voice an opposing opinion to the way Nicholas had the country at the present state. Nicholas was not staying in his Winter palace. As the marchers approached the palace, they were fired on and charged at by cavalry. Approximately 200 marchers were killed. Immediately mayhem erupted around Russia, with peasants seizing property and questions were now starting to be raised about Nicholas’ treatment of mother Russia. Instantly after the bitter Bloody Sunday occurance, the people of Russia’s depiction as Tsar Nicholas being ‘the little father’ was tainted. This was a problem that didn’t have to happen if Nicholas didn’t take such a repressive approach leading up to this avoidable commencement of panic in the Tsarist Government.

Two of the most important and influential characters in the Tsarist government began to think and act wisely, giving Russia some direction that it lacked in previous years. Sergei Witte and Peter Stolypin were loyal to the tsarist regime, however looked to the development of modernisation. Sergei Witte regained composure within the government by dividing the opposition parties during a time of severe crisis in 1905. Witte advised Nicholas to grant concessions to the liberals, wipe out all money owed by peasants, and physically override the rebelling industrial workers. It was also Witte who intended on constructing a strong railway system in Russia to try and modernise and industrialise the nation. One would argue that Witte was a mastermind in the development of Russia, especially during crisis. However, in 1906, Nicholas Tsar unexpectedly dismissed Sergei Witte from his position of chairman, and was never to play an important position in the Tsarist Government. There was no lagitament reason why the Tsar felt the

Rukha Salman

need to replace Witte, therefore is a reflection of Nicholas’ poor choices, lack of strong leadership, and retrospectively speaking, could have contributed enormously to his downfall, seeings Sergei Witte held Russia together.

Peter Stolypin was, similarly to Witte, in favour of economic advancement, however felt he needed to first suppress, then reform. In 1905, Stolypin under-went a long-term turnover revolving the peasants land. He aimed to conserve the peasants land, and it eventually proved to hold possible success until in 1911 he was assassinated, long before his process was complete. If Stolypin wasn’t killed, the state of peasantry in Russia may have progressed to a much stronger and healthier state, so it is easy to question the impact that Stolypin’s death had on the downfall of the Tsar’s moncarhy in terms of unhappiness and rebellions within the country.

The people of Russia expected a bit more than concessions, proceeding the catastrophe of 1905. The Octobrists group were granted a legislative duma in the parliament. In a way, they represented the people’s views. The duma was not granted any reasonable amount of power, and Nicholas made sure of this with his re-introduction of the fundamental laws in 1906. During the first duma, 200 people gathered in Vyborg pleading the people of Russia to defy the Tsarist government in two ways. The first one being refusing to pay taxes. The second, to disobey conscription orders. After these people being arrested, Nicholas first employed Stolypin as his ‘strong man’. The second duma was heavily dominated by Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries. The third and fourth duma were not completely inaudible, and created a lot of tension for Nicholas between 1911 and 1914, with their continuous questioning of his capability. The source below displays the frustration of the duma before its dismissal in 1906.

‘The government has absolutely no desire to satisfy the demands of the people and their expectations of land, rights and freedom. By refusing to fulfil the people’s demands, the government is displaying obvious contempt for the true interests of the people. The present Government should resign immediately and be replaced by a government enjoying the trust of the duma’. - (Declaration of first duma, 1906).

Despite occasional bitter feelings, the concept and introduction of the dumas was a wise decision made by Nicholas, preventing any possibilities of further revolutions, and allowed his people to address their opinion.

Another political implication that the Tsar succeeded from his father Alexander was Russification. Many people view this as a poor policy that deterred many nationalities from living in Russia at the time, especially Jews . In a time where Russia needed unity and harmony, the Tsar encouraged alienating any non-Russians, which wasn’t wise of the Tsar seeing Russia was vastly multi-cultural. The Russification policy planned on imposing Russian ways on every person that lived in the country. Understandably, this created friction between the government and non-Russian people, and various anti-Tsarist Unions were formed. This un-necessarily shaped a negative image of himself to other nations and could have been prevented if Nicholas chose to dismiss the policy when he became Tsar.

Rukha Salman

To gain a better understanding to why Nicholas’ policies and implications seemed somewhat irrational and unfair, it is necessary to look at the position he inherited, how he personally approached it and what kind of an autocratic nation Nicholas envisaged he would lead. Nicholas was a family man, many said he wasn’t politically intelligent, and heavily influenced by his father. It became apparent that he was a stubborn man and didn’t like change hence his autocratic hold on the government, declaring he would rule ‘unswervingly’ and ‘merciless’. Nicholas took on the challenging role earlier than he planned, due to the unexpected death of his father. It was clear that the characteristics he possessed wasn’t suitable for a modernising Russia, and if anything, restricted the economic and political expansion of Russia.

The many revolutionary groups played a significant role in the collapse of the Romanovs. The revolutionary groups were stubborn to reform, and prevented the autocratic style of ruling. Social revolutionaries formed in 1901 and pushed for a democratic, socialist republic, and practised propaganda and assassination. They were slightly successful in achieving delayed reforms. Marxists formed in 1883, who later split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. They were violent and supported strikes. Liberals formed in 1902 generally made up of the middle class, and wanted Russia to be a constitutional government. Though they held many meetings, the Liberals had next to no success, and were completely ignored by the government.

The First World War played a central role in the crash of the Tsarist system. Nicholas saw his involvement in World War 1 as an opportunity to protect and unite Russia. Ironic it is, because it did quite the opposite. In the first two years of War, Russia was being heavily defeated which understandably sparked anger within society. In 1915, Nicholas made the decision to lead Russia from the front, which was to be a very poor decision and from then he was held personally responsible for any military failures. Whilst Russia was involved in War, extreme economic inflation occurred and general necessities were in short supply. When Nicholas left to fight, he made a somewhat terrible decision to leave Rasputin, and his wife to rule whilst Nicholas was away. Tsarina and Rasputin were unsatisfactory leaders, so the Tsar was blamed for allocating them to take over. Also, to satisfy his people, Nicholas Tsar could have altered his autocratic system to relieve great pressure, however he chose not to. Throughout this period of Nicholas’ reign the problems he encountered were his own fault, and inevitably lead to a revolution in 1917, where Nicholas Tsar abdicated. The requirements of the First world war were too heavy for Russia to bear. By 1916, it was widely known that Nicholas Tsar was an incapable military and political leader, which may have been true, however the task that Nicholas faced was one that even the most effective leader would have found difficult.

‘ There is a marked increase in hostile feelings among the peasants not only against the government but also against all other social groups. The mass of industrial workers are quite ready to let themselves go to the wildest excesses of a hunger riot. The prohibition of all labour meetings, the closing of trade unions, the prosecution of men taking an active part in the sick benefit funds, the suspension of labour newspapers, and so on, make the labour masses, led by the more advanced and already revolutionary-minded elements, assume an openly hostile attitude towards the government and protest against the continuation of the war’. – (Okhrana police report, 1917).

Rukha Salman

A small portion of Tsar Nicholas II’s downfall can be seen as his own accountability; however his autocratic ruling style, mixed with the inevitable disasters that were to come his way was a recipe for failure. Due to his natural ruling style inherited from his father Alexander, Nicholas Tsar was unwilling to reform to a nation urgent to modernise. One would say he is simply not a natural ruler, in a time where Russia depended greatly on one.

It is difficult to govern a country with such diverse population. Many of which being peasants especially. Several opposition parties grew from his repressive ways. Nicholas was a weak leader, unable to cope with a country desperate to modernise whilst maintaining an autocracy. World war I was the final warning call for Nicholas, and he failed to deliver, paying the price in 1917.

How far do you agree that the Tsars did little to improve living and working conditions in Russia, 1861-1914?

From 1855 to 1917, Russia lived under the rule of three of the most controversial Tsars; Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II. During these years, the living and working conditions in Russia were abysmal. This essay will argue that despite making some changes in an attempt to improve conditions, the Tsars did little to help due to their grave misunderstanding of the lifestyle of the poor.

Living and working conditions in Russia at this time reflect the poverty experienced by 4/5 of the population who were serfs. A lot of the problems that occurred were tied into farming and land. Land was expensive, so few serfs could afford to buy reasonable sized plots, and those who could, often had to pay redemption payments back to the government, to compensate the wealthy for the serfs using their land. Poll tax also rose by 80% on peasant households, despite most peasants not being able to afford to pay their taxes. Due to backward, labour intensive agricultural and farming techniques, crop yields were far below those of Western European countries, which by this point had started to develop and industrialize. This caused the 1891 famine, in which 350,000 people died from starvation in seventeen of the thirty-nine provinces. In addition, the government tried to quell news of the famine spreading, by censoring newspapers. Eventually the price of crops fell, in which case the population rose (due to families now being able to afford to eat.) Some of the serfs did start moving to the cities, sometimes in search of employment, mainly in search for a better life. Although conditions were not much better in the urban areas. Peasants worked long hours with little job security, even by 1918 only 1.88% of the population worked in factories. Diseases such as cholera and typhoid were rife, workers could be found sleeping in cellars next to machinery in factories, and in 1904 it was found that there could be up to sixteen people sharing a squalid apartment, with water only available in 1/3 of all apartments. These buildings were dirty, small, windowless, and often infested with bed bugs and fleas. Cesspools and contaminated water supplies also added to the terrible conditions. Russian Orthodox shaped the peasants view of the world. Through censorship of the press, westernized ideas were stopped from seeping into Russia, therefore the economy did not develop and industrialize. Indeed, it is clear that the Tsars faced many problems when trying to improve the lifestyle of the Russian people.

Consequently, the three Tsars realised they had to attempt to make improvements to the dire

Rukha Salman

living and working conditions. Many of the improvements made tried to develop the use of the Russian land, and intensify crop production. Up until 1861, Serfdom existed in Russia. Approximately 80% (25 million) of the Russian population were serfs or state peasants. For generations, it was believed that serfdom was the major obstacle in the struggle to modernise Russia. (By the beginning of the nineteenth century, most of Europe had abolished serfdom, but in 1855, Russia still had not done so.) Eventually, Alexander II, also known as the Tsar liberator who ruled from 1855 till his assassination in 1881, signed a ukase in 1861 to abolish serfdom. The Emancipation of the Serfs was set to modernise Russia, whilst improving agricultural techniques, farming methods, and giving the serfs (now peasants) more land, and the freedom they had always wanted. In addition, Alexander III introduced the Peasant land bank to the people of Russia: it gave cheap loans to the Russian peasantry for the purchase of land and provided funding for the improvement of agricultural methods. He also abolished poll tax, in an effort to ease the problems and worries of money at this time. On 9th November 1906, a key reform was made by Peter Stolypin, which freed peasants from the control of peasants communes, and on the 15th November, the Land Bank was instructed to give loans to peasants who wanted to leave the commune. Nicholas II finally cancelled the redemption payments as of New Year’s Day 1907 which were set up to compensate the landed classes for the serfs using their land, (however this was only 4 years before the official end of the payments.) These changes did help to improve living and working conditions of some of the peasants in the Russian countryside.

Other improvements were also made to try and industrialise Russian economy. Alexander II introduced the first form of elective government in 1864. Although limited to the educated and wealthy, the Zemstva (local government units placed in rural areas) were given powers to control elementary education and road building. However, in 1870, this elective government was extended to towns and cities. Alexander II also signed a constitution to organise the government more efficiently. During the reign of Alexander III (from 1881 till his death in 1894,) in 1889 Land captains were introduced, to enforce local laws, replacing the locally elected justices of peace. Again, the land captains consisted of the wealthy and educated, and in the following year (1890) these Land captains were made members of the local government bodies (the Zemstva.) Also, during the reign of Alexander II, the length of service in the army was reduced. All men over the age of 20 were conscripted, training was improved and a better army created after the Crimean war. These changes helped to make the army stronger and more humane. Nicholas II who ruled from 1894 till his abdication in 1917 took direct command of Russia’s armed forces in 1915, giving more control to the government. Economic and social change also occurred under the rule of finance minister Sergei Witte. Emphasis was placed on the production of capital goods such as iron and steel, coal and machinery. Massive inward investment from countries such as Belgium, Britain and France financed economic development, (however some extra taxes were levied on the already over-taxed peasantry.) This meant that peasants could now move to the cities, to work in the factories and jobs that were now provided. Also, the number of railways increased, and Alexander II approved the original plans and funding for the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway, which connects the capital, St. Petersburg, with the Pacific Ocean port of Vladivostok. His son, Alexander III supervised the construction. (The Imperial State Budget spent 1.455 billion roubles from 1891 to 1913 on the railway construction, an expenditure record which was surpassed only by the military budget in

Rukha Salman

World War I.) Consequently, Russia began to industrialise and some improvements to living and working conditions were introduced.

However, the changes made really did little to improve the living and working conditions of the majority of the Russian people. Land was still a major problem for Russia. Due to only 6% of the Russian land being able to be farmed, and crop yields being far below that of western Europe, famine was a major problem in Russia. In 1891 a mass famine hit seventeen of the thirty-nine provinces, and 350,000 people died from starvation. In addition, repression and Russification stalled any major changes from being implemented. After the assassination of Alexander II, Alexander III tried to abolish the reforms made by his father, and repress Russian society. A manifesto published by Pobedonostsev in 1881 meant that Alexander III once again had complete control over Russia, universities and schools were brought under strict control of the Russian government, voting was restricted to only the very wealthy, governments were given the power to choose juries and Russification was implemented, all of which meant westernised ideas could not reach the Russian people, and once again, Russia was an autocratic power. After introducing Land captains, who beat and took the land off the peasants, organised attacks on Jews known as Pogroms were carried out to ‘enforce law and order,’ and Alexander III decided he did not want to share his power with the local Zemstvo set up by his father. Pobedonostsev, (Alexander’s tutor, advisor and interior minister) also helped to repress the Russian society by introducing many new powers and reforms that meant only the government had a say in what changes were to be made to the lives of the Russian people. Nicholas II (despite being a renowned family man, with a pleasant, charming attitude,) had no real interest in politics, and never actually wanted the job of Tsar. He was politically naïve and had no understanding of the terrible conditions and lives of the poor. (He once stated ‘I shall never allow myself to go to bed until I have completely cleared my desk’ of the reforms, plans and work that was to be read by him.) By taking direct control of the army in 1915, he tied the fate of the Romanov Dynasty to the success or otherwise of the army. Russia could never industrialise or develop due to reforms such as the censorship of press, (which meant the government had control over which documents were published) westernised ideas never reached the Russian society, as the Tsars did not want then peasants to see how a better life could be offered by other countries. Also, despite Alexander II introducing the Emancipation of the surfs, peasants were not given the freedom and land that they had been promised. Nobility still kept the good land, and peasants now had to pay repayments of 6% over 49 years. Peasants had to report to the local Mir (the pre-revolutionary communes,) and in 4 months, there were 647 peasant revolts after the reform was introduced.

Although, it could be argued that autocracy is the main reason for the Tsars doing little to improve living and working conditions in Russia. Despite making numerous reforms in an attempt to help, none of the three Tsars wanted anyone but the government to hold any power. They wanted Russia to be an autocratic power. However they knew that eventually Russia would have to develop and introduce westernised ideals. Nicholas II could not imagine any form of government other than autocracy ‘I will stick to the principle of autocracy as unswervingly as my late father (Alexander III.)’ As a result of considerable resentment about the social, political and economic situation Russia, hatred towards the principle of autocracy eventually led to the 1905 revolution, under the rule of Nicholas II. Two events were triggers for the revolution. The Russo-Japanese war, where Russia aimed to expand its

Rukha Salman

empire and its control over the far east, ended in a humiliating defeat for the Russian army, and such was the humiliation, that support for the Tsar was greatly undermined. Also Bloody Sunday, a supposed ‘peaceful’ demonstration by 150,000 workers led by the double agent Father Gapon, which ended in a massacre of hundreds if innocent victims, helped to damage the Tsars popularity and undermine support for him. The revolution lasted for about a year, during which over 2.5 million workers went on strike, government documents were destroyed, gun stores were raided, the Zemstva demanded more power, and the St Petersburg Soviet, (a group of over 400 members representing 96 factories which demanded for radical social reform, but spent most of its time organising strikes) was set up. A mutiny of the battleship Potemkin also occurred in the Black Sea Fleet in June 1905, (however the majority of the army and navy did remain loyal to the Tsar.) As a result, Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto, which did accept that an elected national parliament be created, and began the process whereby the Tsar regained control of Russia. Liberalist groups were pleased with the result, and these Octobrists it as an important but final reform. Other liberals, (mainly the Kadets) saw this as the beginning of a new era of reform,. Although, Nicholas II still greatly believed in autocracy, and therefore issued the Fundamental Law in 1906. This became the constitution of the Russian empire, and created a national parliament, with the introduction of the Duma. However, article 87 of the law gave the right to the Tsar to govern by decree, thereby giving him the power to ignore his own government. Autocracy still ruled. As a result, the Tsar did very little to improve living and working conditions.

After the 1905 revolution, it fell upon the Tsar’s chief minister, Peter Stolypin to bring stability and re-establish political control. However, Stolypin was a ruthless reformer and this era became one of ruthless political repression. Political opponents were repressed, many being executed using the nooses which became known as Stolypin’s neckties. 1144 death sentences were handed out in the period between October 1907 and March 1908. Peasant unrest continued sporadically, and an uprising in Moscow in December 1905 was crushed by the army, with around a thousand rebels killed and hundreds arrested or imprisoned. Although he tried to modernise Russian agriculture, Stolypin did nothing to improve conditions in the towns and cities. Again, it is clear that due to a lack of true understanding of the conditions, little improvements could be made to help Russian lifestyle.

Thus, the three Tsars did little to improve living and working conditions in Russia. Despite making reforms that strengthened the army, gave a little power to local Zemstva and eradicating some of the taxes that made life difficult for the poor, autocracy still enforced that all power be held by the Tsar and government, and therefore there was no chance of any radical change being made. This led to the growth of extremist groups such as the ‘People’s will’ who assassinated Alexander II, which were set up to revolt against the oppressive nature of the government, however extremists were murdered or exiled to Siberia if found and convicted of any plot to overthrow the Tsar.

Rukha Salman

Compare and Contrast the Different Natures of the 1917 Russian Revolutions

It is asserted that two revolutions took place in 1917 in Russia – the February Revolution which forced

the abdication of the Tsar and implication of the Provisional Government, and the October Revolution

which saw his death and the overthrow of said government by the Bolsheviks. According to Soviet

historiography, such as in the novel, History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks), the genuine popular uprising of the

Russian people against a corrupt and bourgeoise regime, guided by the leadership of Lenin, was what

resulted in the October Revolution. However, this view has been completely dismembered in the West,

where historians such as Pipes view October as “a classic coup d'etat” with the aim of building a “one

part dictatorship.” Therefore, to compare these two events, one must thoroughly examine two aspects.

First, what was the nature of each of the “revolutions” - a political or social revolt? Second, the

instigation and driving cause of the revolutions must be examined – a manipulation of the people, or a

spontaneous uprising? This essay will argue that February served as a political change, and October as a

social one, and that although the cause of the revolutions had similar roots, the also held fundamental

differences.

First, the term “revolution” must be defined. The dictionary refers to it as “a forcible overthrow of a

government or a social order, in favour of a new system.” However, this definition is limited. According

to international relations expert and university lecturer Neil Davidson, there are two kinds of revolution.

Political revolutions are struggles within a society for an existing state, but ones that leave the social and

economic structure intact. Generally, the class that was in control stay in control (although individuals

and political parties may have been replaced), and the class that was exploited remains so. Social

revolutions on the other hand result in the complete and total transformation of one type of society into

another. From this, one can argue that the February revolution was a political one. Support for the

February revolution (8th March) being a political one, and not social, is rife. After the autocratic and

oppressive rule of the Tsars, the Russian people hoped the government would introduce the liberal

reforms they so desired. Although at first it appeared as though this was the case – legislation was

passed that led even Lenin (a fierce critic) to declare Russia “the freest of all the belligerent countries,”

there was universal suffrage (made all the more powerful when one sees 'Great' nations such as America

and Britain did not allow 50% of their population this privilege, and yet preached democracy), and

freedom of speech, with no censorship. However, once the initial wave of support subsided, unrest grew

once more. This was due to the revolutions failure to revolutionise more than the governmental system.

The revolution had left the same class in power – the seats of the government were composed of the

bourgeoisie, and remnants of those in power from the old Tsarist system. The war, which had been a

Rukha Salman

key factor contributing to the bread riots that sparked the revolution on International Women's Day,

was still raging on claiming ever more lives, and the class that had been suppressed throughout serfdom

remained so, as the bourgeoisie in control found the concept of the working class owning the land they

worked on completely abhorrent.

In stark contrast to this, the October Revolution was no doubt a social revolution. According to liberal

Pipes, the October revolution was in fact a coup d'etat. He asserts that the Bolsheviks used a variety of

techniques to gain and then consolidate power, manipulating the masses into accepting their violent

takeover. Responding to allegations that he simply represents a Western view greatly influenced by

negative Russo-American relations during the Cold War, he points to Russian Volkogonov, who had

extensive access to Soviet archives and shares some points with Pipes. However, Volkogonov himself is

part of the movement of contemporary Russian writers wishing to expose the failings of the Communist

Party in an attempt to experience catharsis. Therefore there is room for this view to be challenged.

Relating to Neil Davidson's definition, a revolution is not discounted from being called such simply

because it was led and organised by one party or man. The actual effects of October themselves,

compared to the regime in place prior to Bolshevik rule, are indisputably revolutionary. A key issue that

was creating unrest was the lack of land ownership for peasants. In his April Theses, Lenin clearly

outlines his plans for the “confiscation of all landed estates” and “nationalisation of all lands in the

country.” This was enacted once rule was consolidated. The freedoms women had enjoyed were also

revoked, as well as many larger social changes. By 1920 the state had taken over all enterprises

employing more than ten workers. A barter system replaced the free market, internal trade was made

illegal, money disappeared as the state took over, Church and state were separated by decree and

judges were removed and replaced by members of local soviets. Nine opposition parties were

liquidated. Poorer peasants were mobilized against the kulaks. Evidently this was a complete social and

political change. Lenin himself seemed to recognise the fundamental difference between the two

revolutions, stating that “the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to

the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the

bourgeoisie—to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the

poorest sections of the peasants.” Evidently a key area of difference between the two is the role of the

first as a political revolution, and the role of the second as a total social revolt.

The second area of contrast is to look at the method by which the revolutions came about. Both

revolutions were effected by the war – as alluded to, unrest due to food shortages that were directly

linked to the war had the population in unrest, and Lenin too played off this, a third of his thesis being

Rukha Salman

“peace.” The war was also critical to instigating turning of popular opinion from the Tsar – when he took

charge, the people turned against him, as he became the figurehead for the losses Russia was suffering

in the war, as argued by Acton in 1990. However, where the war during the February Revolution had

shackled the people of Russia and starved them to the point where they threw off their chains and

clamoured for revolution, according to Fitzpatrick - who provides a more balanced account of the

revolution – the Bolsheviks used the war as a means to gain power. The force behind the February

revolution was rooted in the people. The events leading up to the February revolution were strikes,

followed by demonstrations to demand bread, bringing out 50,000 workers to join the rally. By March

10th, just three days later, virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down.

Students, white-collar workers and teachers soon joined. When the Tsar, on March 11th, called for his

troops to take action against the rioting force, they began to mutiny, asking “those are our brothers and

sisters out there – asking for food. Are we going to shoot them too?”

In contrast, the October Revolution was much less romanticized. Whereas the key dates for February

highlight the role of protests and people en-masse, October can be broken into a meeting on the 23rd,

wherein the Bolsheviks voted 10-2 for a resolution saying an armed uprising was inevitable, and that

“the time is fully ripe,” and the 7th of December, where over that date and a few days after it, the

Bolsheviks took over major government facilities culminating in an assault on the winter palace. During

the course of the revolution, a comparatively bloodless 6 people died in total. Lenin himself was a

meticulous planner, as can be illustrated by his rejection of the Kronstadt sailors revolt, telling them the

time was not right (although his role is changed in Sergei Eisenstein's film, 'October'). Therefore,

although in neither revolution the people rose up to defend the system in place, the methods through

which the revolutions came to fruition were very different. Lenin was allowed this swift and easy

takeover of the current government because, as with the Tsar, they did not have control over the army,

their power had been split with the Soviets from the very beginning, and no one was fighting for the

provisional government. Their lack of censorship of the press led to greater opportunities for

propaganda, as can again be seen through reference in Lenin's theses; “as long as we are in the minority

we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of

transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.” Evidently, the causes of the

two revolutions, although both linked to the war, and both aided by a lack of support for the existing

regime, are decidedly different – one was a spontaneous uprising, while the other was an organised and

meticulously planned take over based around weaknesses in the existing regime and careful assessment

and application of the wills of the people.

Rukha Salman

In conclusion, when examining the nature of the two revolutions, one must specifically examine, and if

necessary challenge, what is meant by “revolution.” In the case of Russia, the revolution of February

represented a political revolution, one which, through failure to produce any significant social change

that could be experienced by the masses, and freedom of press, allowed the Bolsheviks to rise in

confidence and strategy. With Lenin back in the country, the war raging on, no land reforms and hunger

still widespread, the Bolsheviks with their simple and yet powerful slogan “peace, bread, land” came to

power. The systems in place prior to each revolution were not strong enough to maintain power, and

were not liked enough to prevent revolution. With this failure of the Provisional Government, the

Bolsheviks were able to move in and institute a complete social revolution, a revolution that has not

only changed the face of Russia, but one which has had a long reaching impact across Europe, Asia, and

far beyond its October beginnings into World War Two and the Cold War. OR

The main difference between the causes of the two revelations was that the one in February

happened by chance and was a product of more widespread discontent while the one in

October was the result of meticulous planning by one man and his lieutenants. The main

difference in nature of the two was that in February the people were demanding the removal

of a government while in October the people were demanding replacing it with a specific

type of government.

The February Revolution was not premeditated in any way but was rather a spontaneous

outburst of civil discontent. The common people of Russia have long envied the privileges

granted to their counter parts in more socially advanced European states such as Great

Britain or Germany and their discontent was only further exacerbated by the shortage of

food and other hardships mounted on them by the ongoing World War. It just so happened

that these rumbling of discontent came to a head on February 1917, when on International

Women’s Day women, men, and children took to the streets, demanding not a great social

upheaval but rather just enough to sustain themselves. The Revolution was successful not

because of the execution of a Byzantine plot decades in the making by some devious

Machiavellian but rather for the simple fact that the soldiers, namely the Cossacks, were

unwilling to shoot what could have been their own friends and family for demanding the

privilege of not starving to death, their only reward being the inevitability of being sent to

Rukha Salman

the cold, cruel front in an increasingly desperate war. As Wallace McCollum argues, the

February Revolution was not a revolution but a coup triggered by a bread riot. With their

army gone the last pillar upholding the rotting structure of the Russian Imperial Government

was removed and converted into a battering ram, leaving it with no other choice but to

relent to the new democratic government of the Duma.

This new Duma was mainly made up of those from the middle class of Russia and supported

progressive reforms such as freedom of speech, religion, and universal suffrage. While this

sounds all well and good from our perspective, the reality was that on overwhelming

majority of Russians were not middle class but rather peasants or laborers. Mikhail Dmitri

Rastovkin argues that the largely illiterate working class of Russia did not appreciate these

reforms. How could you appreciate being able to write or read anything you want if you

cannot read? How can you appreciate being able to practice any religion you wanted if all

you knew was the Russian Orthodox Church? How could you appreciate being in a position

to participate in politics when you have had no experience with it? To the peasants, the only

reform that mattered was land reform, something that was at odds with the liberal stance of

the Duma, which believed in private ownership. It was both that and the continuation of the

war, which led to public support turning against the Duma and turning towards Lenin and his

radical Bolsheviks. Far from offering intangible ideologically based handouts Lenin promised

peace, bread, and land. Far from the spontaneous outbursts of disorder present in the

February Revolution, the October Revolution was premeditated every step of the way by

Lenin. By October, he had managed to organize the seizer of government posts all over

Russia culminating in the dramatic storming of the Winter Palace, which had been

abandoned by all save the Women Shock Brigade of Death. Ironic to think that the February

Revolution started with women on International Women’s Day and ended with an all female

paramilitary formation being its final line of defence.

The main difference between the causes of the two revelations was that the one in February

happened by chance and was a product of more widespread discontent while the one in

October was the result of meticulous planning by one man and his lieutenants. The main

Rukha Salman

difference in nature of the two was that in February the people were demanding the removal

of a government while in October the people were demanding replacing it with a specific

type of government.

Why did the Revolution of 1905 Fail?

The revolution in Russia of 1905 was a wave of social unrest and political mass movements a fact which is supported through historian James De Fronzo who states that discontent with the Tsar’s rule was expressed through the “growth of political parties… through industrial strikes for better wages and working conditions, protests and riots among peasants, university demonstrations, and the assassination of government officials"1. It can be argued that the 1905 revolution was little more than outbreaks of rage, with the intention of forcing concessions – this can be seen through Bloody Sunday, the event which sparked the revolution – rather than a proper revolution which aimed to overthrow the Tsar. The fact that 1905 was no proper revolution played a key part in its failing, other factors however, such as the fatal lack of unity and military support also contributed.

One of the key reasons for the failure of the revolution of 1905 was the lack of military support for the revolutionaries due to their remaining loyal to the Tsar. While mutinies such as on the Potemkin and in Sevastopol, had occurred over the course of the Russo-Japanese War due to the soldiers’ dislike of the war, and as a protest against the horrid conditions in the army, they soon stopped and the army reunited behind the Tsar, after receiving pay and changes to the service conditions. Following this change in the army, the Tsar employed them to fight revolutions and strikes in the cities and later uprisings in the countryside; the Tsar benefited from their willingness to destroy revolts, especially ones like the strike in St. Petersburg which led to the arrest of the leaders of the St. Petersburg Soviet, these including Leon Trotsky and Alexander Parvus, on December 3ed 1905, before they could cause legitimate damage to the Tsar’s regime2. The Tsar’s willingness to rely on such harsh measures to end the revolutionary activities in cities and towns caused them to become less and less, until troops could be spared to be sent around the Russian Empire to restore order by January 1906 – thousands of peasants were found guilty of causing unrest in the countryside, 3394 of which were sentenced to death3. Although strikes and riots were still carried out in the larger cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg many important revolutionaries fled the country in order to escape; on February 18th 1906 new punishments were introduced for those “seeking to undermine government offices and agencies by verbal or written 'inaccuracy'”, which resulted in the arrest of more revolutionaries4. As the army dispersed and weakened Nicholas’ II opposition, it played a key role in the failure of the revolution of 1905. The Tsar’s reign would have been threatened if mutinies like the Potemkin Mutiny in the June of 1905, had succeeded; the army may have turned against the Tsar, if the men returning from Japan had not been loyal to Nicholas due to a strong belief in the Tsar and economic benefits. Had the army joined the revolutions and turned against the Tsar, he would have been overthrown easily, thus making this

Rukha Salman

one of the key aspects contributing to the fail of the revolution.

Another key factor, which caused the failing of the 1905 revolution, was the fact that the Tsar’s opposition was disunited and that the revolution itself lacked a clear leader. It can be argued that if the revolution would have had two strong leaders like in 1917, it could have overthrown the Tsar. It was however, not only this fatal lack of leaders, but also the fact that the regime’s oppositions – the different political parties, the proletarians, middle class, students and general public – failed to unify and cooperate to form an effective opposition. As argued by Richard Pipes, “the ‘masses’ neither needed nor desired a revolution; the only group interested in it was the intelligentsia”5, a fact which can be seen through the drastic ideological differences between different social classes and political groups – this making it nearly impossible for the different groups to work together in a coherent revolution. The Tsar managed to divide his opposition so that the already separated parties had even less common ground, through October Manifesto; the moderate liberals, which wanted to keep the Tsar with limited control over the government, were happy with the promised reforms causing their support for the revolts to diminish. Moreover, the middle class, which had been created through Witte’s industrialization was scared of anarchy – Peter Struve, a Marxist turned liberal, stated “thank God for the Tsar who saved us from the people” after harboring peasants in his home during the revolution of 1905 – this showing the division between different political groups which inevitably contributed to the revolution’s failure6. Additionally, the Tsar’s regime succeeded in splitting the revolutionaries even more through the proposal of a Duma – the alliance of liberals, proletarians and peasants fell apart as every group had different objectives. As a result, the differences between different social groups and parties became clear making collaboration even more difficult. The Tsar also managed to diminish unrests and riots in the countryside by announcing that redemption payments would be reduced and even entirely abolished7. Furthermore, peasant unions were given up on as those who continued fighting where faced with no mercy. Other parties, such as the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, worked together and organized mass strikes in cities which were however, often crushed forcing their leaders to flea, resulting in a lack of commanders on the side of the revolution. As a result, the drastic differences between different political groups and the subsequent lack of unity, in addition with the absence of one strong leader caused the revolution to fail in 1905.

Another problem, which contributed to the failing of the 1905 revolution, was the unrest among different nationalities. The Russian Empire covered nearly 23 million square kilometers, with a population of 128 million people, of which only 45% were ethnic Russian.8 As the governing elite was almost entirely culturally russified, people of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds were discriminated against and maltreated – Jews and Muslims in particular where shunned and forced to live miserable and circumscribed lives and forbidden to settle or acquire land outside the cities and towns9. As a result, different ethnical groups separated during the revolution – even though they had a common goal, they could not overcome deep-seated prejudices and antagonisms in order to unite. Unrest among different nationalities was also caused through the vast size of the Russian Empire – it was close to impossible to communicate with the 85% of the Russian population living in the center or the east of the empire – and as a result people did not know what was happening in different regions and how the revolution was being carried out there10. Furthermore, nationalistic movements of minorities in the

Rukha Salman

Russian Empire grew steadily to reclaim and revive their culture; Poles especially strived to regain independence, which caused tension between different ethnicities as many did not want to give up the land they owned for a new country to be formed. As a result, the revolution was unstable from the start due to well-established contempt and distrust between different ethical groups with clashing cultures.

In contrast to this, one can however also argue that the revolution of 1905 was no proper revolution at all; the term ‘revolution’ is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a “forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”, the revolution in Russia initially requested changed to the Tsar’s ruling and did not wish to overthrow him, and as such it did not fail. The people’s outcry for a reform however, also failed as the Duma was soon closed and Fundamental Laws were introduced in 1906, which enabled the Tsar to over-go the Duma. As proposed by Orlando Figes, “…although the regime succeeded in restoring order, it could not hope to put the clock back. 1905 had changed society for good. Many of the younger comrades of 1905 were the elders of 1917. They were inspired by its memory and instructed by its lessons”11 – as such the revolution had never failed, as it set the foundations for the revolution in 1917, which resulted in the collapse of the Romanov Empire, the point of a revolution. Nevertheless, many argue that 1905 was a failed revolution, most notably due to its chaotic nature, a lack of unity on the side of the revolutionaries, distrust between different ethnicities and cultural groups and a strong opposition in form of the army.

Compare and contrast the contribution of Lenin and Trotsky to the establishment and consolidation of a communist state in Russia between 1917-1924

Lenin died on the 21st of January 1924, as the leader of the communist state that was Russia at the time. Despite his high position, he was not responsible for all the successes that the Bolsheviks had seen in the past seven years. The three key successes during this time, which secured the establishment and consolidation of this communist state in Russia between 1919 and 1924, were: the October Revolution, the Civil War, and the New Economic Policy. Thus, in order to understand the extent and nature of these two mens’ contributions to the establishment and consolidation of the regime, it is vital to analyse their roles in these three main events.

The October Revolution itself occurred rather rapidly on the 25 th-26th of October 1917; therefore it is valuable to look back over the years leading up to this revolution to identify how much Lenin and Trotsky had done to prepare and consequently carry out the October Revolution. According to Isaac Deutscher, a writer well known for his biographies of Trotsky and Stalin, Trotsky did not contribute to the revolution as much as did Lenin. He states “the years between 1907 and 1914 form in [Trotsky’s] life a chapter singularly devoid of political achievement… In this time, however, Lenin assisted by his followers, was forging his party,”. This theory does hold significant ground; after all, Lenin spent the years 1901 and 1902 writing and publishing his book “What is to be Done?” which established the need for a “vanguard” that he would create in the following years and would significantly assist him in achieving the October Revolution. Lenin also published his April Thesis on the 4 th of April 1917 containing the slogan “Peace, Bread, Land” (in lay-man terms). This accumulated a large amount of support for the Bolsheviks amongst the peasants, especially in the regions of Russia, which before 1861 had the highest incidence of serfdom, according to the Russian émigré historian Golovin. Thus it could be argue that it was mainly Lenin’s work and his

Rukha Salman

publications that enabled a successful revolution and hence the commencement of the establishment of a communist state in Russia.

However, Trotsky is also seen by many as the main instigator of the revolution, even according to Lenin’s right-hand man at the time, Lunacharsky, who claims “of all Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-1906 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared.” This shows itself mostly in the last months approaching the October Revolution. Trotsky managed to become chairman of the Petrograd Soviets between September and October of 1917, providing an essential source of support for the Soviets as the Petrograd Soviets shared what Lenin called “Dual Authority” with the Provisional Government, which was in power at the time. Ever since the February Revolution the Petrograd Soviets had established their power in Petrograd by issuing ‘Order Number One’ on the 1st of March 1917. This determined that all workers should follow the Provisional Government’s orders unless instructed otherwise by the Petrograd Soviets. Having such power over as wide an audience as Petrograd’s workers gave the Bolsheviks a clear advantage in graining support during the October Revolution. Thus Trotsky fed into the efforts of the revolution in a more practical way than did Lenin. He extended these efforts by creating the Military Revolutionary Committee, the MRC, an army of 500 men that acted as the militarily wing of the Bolsheviks on the day of the revolution. Though 500 men are not a lot in a country of 150 million, as the Petrograd Garrison had abandoned the Provisional Government by this point, the MRC provided the Bolsheviks with 500 more soldiers than had the Provisional Government. Hence, the MRC assisted the Bolsheviks in achieving the revolution in a physical matter, whilst Lenin’s work fueled it at a more ideological level.

Whilst Trotsky’s Red Army is often seen as the saviour of the Civil War, Lenin is seen as the man who imposed War Communism. War communism was a more economic side of the war, through which peasants were forced to give the government their grain at very cheap prices, this was known as “grain requisition”. Most peasants hated this tactic, but it allowed the Soviets to provide more food to the workers, although this amount in itself was still extremely low. Whilst Lenin contributed to the War in this manner, otherwise remaining in hiding most of the time due to the paranoia he developed after being shot twice at the beginning of the war, Trotsky had a more prominent role in the battlefields. As the War Commissar and infamous for his harsh ways Trotsky was extremely effective in defeating the Whites and foreign interventionists through the use of his Red Army. His ruthlessness in war is apparent in his application of logic in many situations for example in the execution of the Tsar and his family. According to Trotsky himself, “the execution of the Tsar and his family was needed not only to frighten, horrify and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy, but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no retreating,”. This underlines the nature of his actions during the war, which though brutal created an unbeatable, organized and ruthless Red Army with high morale. Trotsky himself travelled 70 000 miles during the Civil War on his “special train”, securing all rail lines for the Bolsheviks, which was a vital advantage they maintained over the Whites. As well as this he collected volunteers for the Red Army (both forcibly and voluntarily) from villages all over Russia, rapidly increasing the Red Army to 3 million men within the first year of the Civil War. From these facts it is evident that if either of these two men should be responsible for the success of the Reds in the Civil War, it was certainly Trotsky who played a more important role. And this arguably secured the establishment of a communist state of Russia and thus allowed for its consolidation.

Finally, it was the New Economic Policy, established by Lenin, that allowed for an improvement of Russia’s economy between 1921 and 1924. The NEP was introduced in March of 1921 at a time when grain harvests were half of what they had been in 1913 and even Pravda, the official communist newspaper, admitted that 1 in 5 of the population was starving. Lenin’s NEP was seen as a breech of communism and Trotsky and Bukharin supported an extension of War Communism, which they believed to be ‘true socialism’ as it

Rukha Salman

squeezed the peasants and gave power to the workers. However, due to the horrible conditions of hunger and suffering in Russia, which War Communism had created, Lenin gradually decided to “serve the peasants” as his critiques labeled it. However, even Lenin initially supported War Communism, and even though there were many protests and revolts against his government during this time, he continued to pursue this policy. Nevertheless, it was the uprising of the Kronstadt Sailors, men who Trotsky had previously described as “heroes of the revolution”, that Lenin decided that change was necessary and created the NEP. Even so, Lenin’s NEP assisted the communist consolidation of power much more than the War Communism that Trotsky supported. Although Russian historians such as Volkogonov (who was a committed Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist for most of his career but came to repudiate communism and the Soviet system within the last decade of his life) argues “the Leninist promise of great progress turned into great backwardness.” The results of the NEP reject this argument as Soviet statistics show that between 1921 and 1924 value of factory output and worker’s wages went up by 200%. Though these statistics may have been blown up for propaganda purposes, the mere fact that the NEP abolished grain requisition means that it enabled the communists to get less hatred from the peasants, and the peasants began growing crops in larger quantities again as they were not afraid of it being taken away from them. Therefore, in the economic sense Lenin seemed to have been more effective and humane then Trotsky, and this allowed the communists to gradually consolidate their power by improving Russia’s economic conditions and decreasing hunger.

In conclusion, though both Lenin and Trotsky played major roles in the establishment and consolidation of a communist state in Russia, the nature of Lenin’s role was more bureaucratic and organizational while that of Trotsky was more hands on and physical.

HOW FAR HAD LENIN ACHIEVED HIS AIMS BY THE TIME OF HIS DEATH IN 1924?

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, was the leader of the Bolshevik party and the head figure of the Russian revolution of 1917. During his reign from 1917 to 1924 he ruthlessly  pursued his aims toward the creation of a socialist workers’ paradise with the help of his secret police. For this man the end justified the means and his idealism did not blind him from pragmatic solutions. Although Lenin would from time to time do a complete U-turn with his policies and introduce something which was in stark contrast with the principles of Marxism, he never lost sight of his goals. Such contradictions often caused rifts and disagreements even within the tightly-knit Bolshevik party, but it seems that the sheer will-power and determination of Lenin kept the movement together and enabled the Russian revolution and its survival and triumph in the Civil War that followed.

Lenin’s aims were many and varied. In the beginning of the 20th century, the most obvious one was to start a revolution in Russia and overthrow the old system in place of a socialist system. For this Lenin decided that he needed an elite cadre of professional revolutionaries willing to dedicate their entire existence to the cause of the revolution. Lenin and the Bolshevik party played an important role in the events that led to the revolution and abdication of the Tsar. Lenin, however, did not want to work within the provisional government which was quickly established encompassing the former Duma parties and politicians. He was not a man of compromise. In November of 1917 the Bolsheviks, after quietly assuming control over several newly established military institutions and gaining the support of soldiers, toppled the provisional government and began to secure and consolidate Bolshevik control over all government institutions and thus all aspects of society. Lenin sought to achieve a position for himself and the Bolshevik from where they would be able to direct the Russian nation and Russian society towards the socialist paradise.

With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lenin had to on more than one occasion deviate from the ‘party line’ and the Marxist doctrine in order to achieve short-term goals which would then enable the continuation of the (never-ending) march towards socialist utopia. Some of the higher principles of Marxism had to be shelved and the primary objective was to defeat the White forces and save the revolution. Lenin and the Bolshevik Party introduced War Communism in 1918 (although the term was coined as late as 1921), which aimed at bringing all industry, resources and labour (man-power) under

Rukha Salman

direct control of the centralized state, thus making it possible to direct all resources as effectively as possible towards the goal of winning the war. This was achieved, although for a terrible human and material cost.

The ideal of a money-free economy proved to be difficult to realize, and so after some initial experimentation, the rouble was fixed to the Gold Standard. However, the industrial sector, although brought under state control with relative ease, performed abysmally, initially plummeting 70% because management was transferred away from capitalist owners to state-employees who often knew little about management. Also the lack of any kind of incentives played a role. Another difficulty Lenin encountered was the ‘petty bourgeois’, who owned their own land and were conservative by nature. The fact that this class made up around 80% of the populace made things much harder, as they were not urban workers. They had different values, different socio-economic situation and different interests. Lenin had a most "Leninist" solution to this dilemma: incorporate the petty bourgeois into the rest of the working class by making them state employees through coercion and vast collectivization projects (although these would come into full effect later). Bolshevik policies caused a drop of 60% in agricultural output (compared to pre-war levels) and forced Lenin to re-think his policies. There was a Civil War going on and he was forced to make some fairly significant concessions to the land-owning peasantry (the Kulaks) in his New Economic Policy. Of course, once the Reds had won the Civil War and the Bolsheviks had a firm grip on power, the Kulaks as a class would be eliminated mercilessly. The triumph of Lenin and the Reds in the Civil War was a major achievement and it enabled the revolution to live on under the ‘fatherly guidance’ of the Bolsheviks.

The New Economic Policy is a good indication of Lenin’s tactics: he was realistic and determined enough to give in on ideological matters in order to secure material, tactical and practical gain for the Bolshevik Party. The NEP was intended to encourage increased food production among Kulaks, i.e. it made it profitable to produce and to own land. Lenin had no qualms about letting the “peasants have their little bit of capitalism” as long as the Bolshevik Party would “keep power” securely in their hands. It was Lenin’s authority and his determination that made sure the NEP was approved by the rest of the Party members, many of whom were uneasy with these concessions to capitalism. The fact is that Lenin recognized the necessity of these reforms or “concessions” and as the only option to avoid famine and further instability in the country-side. The NEP was a temporary solution that only postponed the eventual conflict that arose from the contradiction between official party policy and ‘realistic’ policy, which still helped to maintain separate socio-economic classes and allowed for private property.

Lenin definitely achieved more than many could have hoped for. He helped mastermind the socialist revolution in Russia, he masterminded the Bolshevik take-over, he kept the socialist state intact through a Civil War and emerged victorious, and he had secured absolute control for the Party, which now only had to socially engineer Russia into a socialist utopia. Lenin, of course, never came to see this utopia, but considering the odds and the circumstances, his followers were in an ideal position to do so, if they only possessed his determination and his ruthlessness in pursuing that utopia. Lenin’s followers, however, did not take Russia down that road, and Lenin already had an inkling, that not all were as committed to the cause as he was, in his last years.

Rukha Salman