Word count without title and citations: 4,277
Historians have disagreed about the causes of the Bolshevik seizure of power in
Russia in October 1917.
What is your view about the causes of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia
in October 1917?
With reference to three chosen works:
Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problems or
issue differ
Explain the differences you have identified
Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found the most persuasive
and explaining your judgements.
The October 1917 Russian Revolution resulted in the Bolshevik seizure of power and whilst
historians of the time were split into liberal and soviet factions; their contemporaries have since
added a more revisionist view into the mix. The main points of contention for the historians
Christopher Hill, Rex Wade and Richard Pipes are the roles played by Lenin, the people’s
aspirations, and the failures of the Russian government, economic, and social systems. Hill, a
Marxist, asserts that Lenin’s involvement as well as Russia’s situation at the time was
instrumental to the success of the Bolshevik’s but is firmly countered by a staunchly revisionist
Wade who instead focuses on history from the contemporaneous, in his
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
,Word count without title and citations: 4,277
analysis of the importance of the Russian people’s sentiments. Pipes, a decisively anti-Soviet
historian, takes a more liberal stance in positing that the Bolshevik success had little to do with
the masses or Lenin but was instead the product of immense luck on Lenin and the Bolshevik’s
parts as well as Lenin’s political opportunism. Naturally, the Bolsheviks were fortunate to have
been established in a time of massive social upheaval and political awakening, after the
abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. This ‘luck’ however remains a product of said massive social
upheaval and thus of the sentiments of the Russian people. Although all three historians come
a clear cohesive conclusion, that of Hill clearly stands out.
Analysis
The failures of the Russian government, economic, and social systems
Through his vehement assertion that the fundamental cause of the Bolshevik seizure of power
was 'the incompatibility of the Tsarist state with the demand of modern civilisation', (22) Hill
puts forward the Russian governmental, economic, and societal systems’ consistent failures as
the main cause of the Bolshevik success. As a member of the British Communist Party and a
self-described Marxist, Hill’s sympathy for the Bolshevik cause is evident in his reasoning for the
Bolshevik seizure of power. He cites the Tsar government’s ‘incompetence' (Hill 25) as well as
the country's economic system’s ‘steady deterioration'(25) as key reasons for the proletariat's
sudden leftwards swing and support of the Bolsheviks. Although Russia initially experienced
sizable military victories during the First World War (WW1), the ensuing economic failures must
be noted. The governmental push for mass military mobilisation resulted in the migration of 5
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
, Word count without title and citations: 4,277
million men, about 17% of Russia in 1914, and millions of horses towards the front lines
(Harrison 6). This massively impacted agricultural production during this period. The troops had
to be fed but the sizable decrease in available labourers meant the regulation of front-line
provisions was questionable at best and this in turn affected morale nationwide as well bringing
into question the Tsar and his office's ability to properly govern Russia. Similarly, in his
investigation of a nationwide loss of morale Pipes investigates a much earlier point in Russia’s
governmental history, the abolition of Serfdom.
As opposed to Hill and Wade, Pipes begins by looking at a much more 'long term' cause of
revolution. Although Pipes makes it clear he believes the Bolshevik Revolution’s main cause was
Lenin's involvement, due to his opportunistic behaviour, and influence on the Bolshevik Party’s
organisation , he also addresses the impact the various failings of the Russian system had on
the successful Bolshevik seizure of power. Through citing military historian Nikolai Nikolayevich
Golovin, Pipes notes 'the strongest support … came from the regions which before 1861 had
had the highest incidence of serfdom' (Pipes 40). 1 Although it had officially been abolished 56
years before the October Revolution, its creation of very distinct social classes was greatly
beneficial to the Bolsheviks. Most Bolshevik support coming from ex-serfs highlights serfdom’s
lasting effect on public sentiment as well as how the Bolshevik promises to offer a better
alternative to the Russian people aided their claim for power. The overwhelming importance of
public sentiment is parroted by Wade through his exploration of ‘people’s aspirations’. In fact,
Pipe’s linking of
1
Serfdom, which is a tenant farmer being bound to a hereditary plot of land and the will of a landowner was a
highly restrictive system that alienated the aristocracy and peasantry whilst also disadvantaging ex-serfs through
high redemption payments and inadequate land redistribution.
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
Historians have disagreed about the causes of the Bolshevik seizure of power in
Russia in October 1917.
What is your view about the causes of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia
in October 1917?
With reference to three chosen works:
Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problems or
issue differ
Explain the differences you have identified
Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found the most persuasive
and explaining your judgements.
The October 1917 Russian Revolution resulted in the Bolshevik seizure of power and whilst
historians of the time were split into liberal and soviet factions; their contemporaries have since
added a more revisionist view into the mix. The main points of contention for the historians
Christopher Hill, Rex Wade and Richard Pipes are the roles played by Lenin, the people’s
aspirations, and the failures of the Russian government, economic, and social systems. Hill, a
Marxist, asserts that Lenin’s involvement as well as Russia’s situation at the time was
instrumental to the success of the Bolshevik’s but is firmly countered by a staunchly revisionist
Wade who instead focuses on history from the contemporaneous, in his
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
,Word count without title and citations: 4,277
analysis of the importance of the Russian people’s sentiments. Pipes, a decisively anti-Soviet
historian, takes a more liberal stance in positing that the Bolshevik success had little to do with
the masses or Lenin but was instead the product of immense luck on Lenin and the Bolshevik’s
parts as well as Lenin’s political opportunism. Naturally, the Bolsheviks were fortunate to have
been established in a time of massive social upheaval and political awakening, after the
abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. This ‘luck’ however remains a product of said massive social
upheaval and thus of the sentiments of the Russian people. Although all three historians come
a clear cohesive conclusion, that of Hill clearly stands out.
Analysis
The failures of the Russian government, economic, and social systems
Through his vehement assertion that the fundamental cause of the Bolshevik seizure of power
was 'the incompatibility of the Tsarist state with the demand of modern civilisation', (22) Hill
puts forward the Russian governmental, economic, and societal systems’ consistent failures as
the main cause of the Bolshevik success. As a member of the British Communist Party and a
self-described Marxist, Hill’s sympathy for the Bolshevik cause is evident in his reasoning for the
Bolshevik seizure of power. He cites the Tsar government’s ‘incompetence' (Hill 25) as well as
the country's economic system’s ‘steady deterioration'(25) as key reasons for the proletariat's
sudden leftwards swing and support of the Bolsheviks. Although Russia initially experienced
sizable military victories during the First World War (WW1), the ensuing economic failures must
be noted. The governmental push for mass military mobilisation resulted in the migration of 5
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
, Word count without title and citations: 4,277
million men, about 17% of Russia in 1914, and millions of horses towards the front lines
(Harrison 6). This massively impacted agricultural production during this period. The troops had
to be fed but the sizable decrease in available labourers meant the regulation of front-line
provisions was questionable at best and this in turn affected morale nationwide as well bringing
into question the Tsar and his office's ability to properly govern Russia. Similarly, in his
investigation of a nationwide loss of morale Pipes investigates a much earlier point in Russia’s
governmental history, the abolition of Serfdom.
As opposed to Hill and Wade, Pipes begins by looking at a much more 'long term' cause of
revolution. Although Pipes makes it clear he believes the Bolshevik Revolution’s main cause was
Lenin's involvement, due to his opportunistic behaviour, and influence on the Bolshevik Party’s
organisation , he also addresses the impact the various failings of the Russian system had on
the successful Bolshevik seizure of power. Through citing military historian Nikolai Nikolayevich
Golovin, Pipes notes 'the strongest support … came from the regions which before 1861 had
had the highest incidence of serfdom' (Pipes 40). 1 Although it had officially been abolished 56
years before the October Revolution, its creation of very distinct social classes was greatly
beneficial to the Bolsheviks. Most Bolshevik support coming from ex-serfs highlights serfdom’s
lasting effect on public sentiment as well as how the Bolshevik promises to offer a better
alternative to the Russian people aided their claim for power. The overwhelming importance of
public sentiment is parroted by Wade through his exploration of ‘people’s aspirations’. In fact,
Pipe’s linking of
1
Serfdom, which is a tenant farmer being bound to a hereditary plot of land and the will of a landowner was a
highly restrictive system that alienated the aristocracy and peasantry whilst also disadvantaging ex-serfs through
high redemption payments and inadequate land redistribution.
Cumulative word count with in text citations: 118
