Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Narrative personal experience of war
World War II in literature
An essay on travel writing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Narrative personal experience of war
In 1656, Pascal wrote, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time". In other words, it's easy to be prolix but time, intellect, application and clarity are needed to be concise yet simultaneously informative. In this book, Steve Smith has achieved the "impossible": a perfect example of lucid concision in which he distills books that run to a thousand pages into around 180. "A Short Introduction" is just that and yet, Smith allows for statistical data (e.g., Red vs. White casualty figures, percentages of proletariat vs. peasants, etc) where necessary while also including his own enlightened perspective on the Bolshevik enterprise and yes: there are both good and bad points which should be acknowledged, regardless of one's own political philosophy. …show more content…
Perhaps the prime catalyst was Russian involvement in WW-I. Russia was unequipped for battle against a sophisticated, determined professional army (Kaiserine Germany) backed by a large, modern, industrial economy. Yet, despite disaster after disaster, the Great Autocrat, Tsar Nicholas II, this arrogant, benighted and "divinely anointed" ruler was both intractable and sufficiently obtuse as to not recognize the unfolding debacle. A few concessions were made and then recanted. Thus, the stage was set. Kerensky's successor government was limited and ineffectual in dealing with soldier and peasant demands and, fatally engaged with General Kornilov to maintain power. By dint of iron willpower and absolute adherence to a carefully defined program, Lenin succeeded in undermining the Provisional Government. He was masterfully aided by the Petersburg Soviet under the brilliant and supremely capable Trotsky. Smith capably reviews all this and much more, yet keeps the story "on
During the 19th century, Russia was experiencing a series of changes with its entire nation and society overall. The government was trying to adapt themselves to them at the same time. It was not an easy time period for Russia whatsoever. Vladimir Lenin helped change this.
The first sight of economic and political challenges were during the Civil War, as the country was falling apart and the Government needed to keep them together therefore the country became more centralised and authoritarian, to gain more control of the people. Lenin brought in War Communism to deal with the effects of the Civil War.
Well you can start off with Russia in 1915 before all the revolutions. Nicholas II, a very incompetent leader, and not the smartest one either during a time of bad economic crisis. So that didn’t help the government at all, not to mention they were fighting in WWI with half of the skilled workers fighting. While fighting in WWI, Nicholas thought that the troops would fight harder if he were leading them. While Nicholas was fighting he left Tsarina Alexandra in charge of Russia. The problem with this is that she made horrible decisions, partly because of Rasputin (a monk, or faith healer), She would hear different sides of the argument and then the last person to talk to her would make her mind up for her. So Rasputin would basically just wait to be the last person to talk to her so that way he could get stuff done in the government. But this earned him a bad reputation and got him assassinated. This would lead to increasing problems and the start of a revolution.
Platt, Kevin M. F. and David Brandenberger, eds. Epic Revisionism: Russian History and Literature as Stalinist Propaganda. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 2006.
The accumulation of these factors centred on Lenin's leadership helped stamp Bolshevik power across the Soviet Union. Lenin’s pragmatic leadership was the most considerable factor in helping to fortify Bolshevik power. His willingness to take power in October/November 1917 and the successes of the move, through his right-hand man, Trotsky, was critical as it helped give him unquestioned authority within the party despite members of the Central Committee i.e. Zinoviev and Kamenev suggested industrialisation needed to occur first. This highlighted Lenin’s communist ideology, which was essential to the Bolsheviks maintaining power. Following the failure of the Provisional Government, Lenin recognised that it was the Bolshevik’s priority to legitimise their government.
Lenin made a series of policies throughout the beginning of the Revolution and through his short time in public office that came to be collectively known as ‘Leninism’. There were many things that influenced Leninism, such as Karl Marx. Lenin had read Karl Marx and his...
In 1905 , Russia had a prerevolution that was put down of the Czar. Instead of learning from this prerevolution, Czar Nicholas II, made a very big mistake by in not introducing some reforms to correct the problems. So because of his actions, the situation grew worse. In 1917, the Russians were fighting in World War I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent along with economic hardships caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards. A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was gonna set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer of the theories and ideas of Karl Marx. So with his slogan of "Bread, Peace and Land", Lenin gained the support of the peasants and gained control of Russia and setup a communist state.
On the other hand, if we consolidate the facts we have covered in the essay we can identify key points that were capitalised on by Lenin such as the weakness of the provisional government and using his influence to motivate the Bolshevik Central Committee, we cannot deny that these were some of the more crucial factors regarding the Bolshevik seizure of power and without them a November Revolution may not have happened. A result of that would be a legitimate leadership within Russia and the Bolsheviks would then be seen as the aggressors. Concluding this, we can make the decision that it was not Lenin alone who was the reason for the success of the Bolshevik coup, rather an overall period of instability within the Russian leadership and the Bolsheviks offered an alternative.
The "Communist Manifesto" Mountain View College Reader. Neuleib, Janice. A. Cain S., of Kathleen. Ruffus, Stephen. The.
Bender, Frederic L. Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ed. 1988.
history. This event was created by a lack of freedom that was ignored by czar Nicholas II. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a major turning point in history. It marked the end of a czar rule of the Romanovs, as well as the beginning of a communist rule. The Revolution didn't just consist of one event. It consisted of many. Some of these events were the Czarist wartime incompetence, the March Revolution, the Czar abdicating his throne, the provisional government failing, and the communists taking control.
Over the next few years, Russia went through a traumatic time of civil war and turmoil. The Bolsheviks’ Red Army fought the white army of farmers, etc. against Lenin and his ways. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won and began to wean Russia of non-conforming parties eventually banning all non-communist as well as removing an assembly elected shortly after the Bolshevik’s gain of power. Lenin’s strict government, however, was about to get a lot stricter with his death in 1924.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Trans. Paul M. Sweeny. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.
middle of paper ... ... Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past of Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964) An unrelenting series of war’s, unnecessary hunger and famine and the selfish greed of the ruling elite.