The Nazi-Soviet Pact 1939

During the summer of 1939 Britain and the Soviet Union (USSR) talked of forming an alliance against Germany. The British delayed things as much as possible because Poland was just as afraid of an attack from the Soviet Union as it was from Germany, so it was unwilling to accept help from the Soviets. Britain sent a very lowly politician to negotiate with Stalin. This negotiator had to relay every question back to London, as he was not allowed to make decisions for himself. This insulted Stalin and he was not prepared to waste time waiting for Britain to decide on what they were doing. He looked to Hitler who had offered a pact with the Soviet Union.

Hitler’s policy of lebensraum involved conquering territory east of Germany, which would surely mean that he would go into conflict with the Soviet Union soon. This was why people were shocked when on 23 August 1939 a declaration was made that these two countries had signed the Nazi-Soviet pact. Yet another reason for shock was that Hitler was a fascist whereas Stalin was a communist dictator. These two ways of governing are almost exact opposite and are famous for hating the other. Hitler was openly criticising communism at this time and many of the world leaders saw him as a buffer to fight communism. There was bafflement when this announcement was made.

We now know why it was signed. Hitler’s next target was Poland as many had predicted. He signed the agreement with Stalin, which also included several secret clauses that divided Poland between the two nations. Germany would attack from the west and the Soviet Union from the east; catching Poland in a two pronged attack. Stalin signed the agreement as he had concluded that it was the better of the two deals on the table. He had run out of patience with Britain’s failure to sign an agreement. He had been annoyed when left out of the Munich conference and was suspicious that Britain and France were trying to direct Hitler’s attention to the east and away from the west.

Stalin knew that this agreement would only give him breathing time to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany. He preferred to take this rather than sign a pact with Britain who he believed to be a traitor and too slow.

Questions
1. What was appeasement?
Appeasement was the policy that Chamberlain and Daladier adopted towards Germany in the 1930s. They agreed to Germany’s demands as long as they were reasonable, i.e. they were getting German speaking people back or that they were righting a wrong of the treaty of Versailles. They agreed to these demands to avoid a war.

2. Some Historians have criticised the Soviet Union for signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Source F defends the signing. Do you agree with the interpretation given in Source F? Explain your answer.
I agree with Source F in that Stalin made the right choice signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact. This is because I can see that Britain was just wasting time with Stalin. They were much too wary of signing any agreement and I believe that they would never have done so. The Soviet Union was relatively weak in 1939 and needed time to prepare for a war. I can see that the best way for them to buy this time would be to sign this pact. It gave them as source f states, “breathing time to carry through the political and military measures needed in order to ensure the country’s security.” Stalin knew as well as anybody that this peace between the two countries would not last due to Hitler’s aims. It was definitely in my opinion the better of the two pacts and so for this I believe that the Soviet Union were right to sign it for their nation’s security.

3. Do you think Hitler intended to remain on good terms with the Soviet Union after 1939? Explain your answer.
I believe that Hitler would have intended to stay on good terms until Poland had consolidated defeat. He would also have waited to see Britain and France’s reaction to this unprovoked invasion because he would have needed Stalin’s support if they interfered. However after Poland had been won and Britain and France had conceded I believe that Hitler would have ripped up the pact and gone to war with the Soviet Union. This is because of his aims. He clearly states that one of his main priorities was to gain lebensraum for German speaking people, east of Germany. This means that he would almost certainly invade the Soviet Union. Another reason for my belief is that Hitler was a fascist whereas Stalin was a communist. These two ideologies are political opposites and Hitler displayed openly his hatred of communism. This is why I believe that after 1939 Hitler would have turned against the Soviet Union and tried to invade.

Why did Italy fail to achieve independence in 1848-1849?

Italy failed to achieve independence in the 1848 revolutions as they were divided physically and each revolution had very different aims. Austrian recovery from internal affairs played a decisive role in halting the revolutions, as did the personal desires of Louis Napoleon of France. The turnaround of the Pope’s role and standing played a lesser but still significant part in the failing of the revolutions, along with the exclusion of the peasants form newly elected governing bodies. The defining factor of the revolutions that occurred in Italy in 1848 and 1849 was their fragmentation and it was this diversity in intentions that rendered each separate revolution much less likely to succeed than a joint one.

The most important factor in the failure of the revolutions in 1848 was the opposition that a vastly superior Austria provided. Even with revolutions in Vienna and all throughout the Austrian empire, their quick suppression of these allowed them to fully control the uprisings in Italy. All of the revolts that started in 1848-1849 were defeated by Austrians, bar the Roman Republic. This military dominance coupled with the divided revolutions meant there was no chance of success against such well trained and superior forces. The role of General Radetsky was vital in the Austrian victories, and his decisive and inspired military leadership contrasts hugely with Charles Albert’s. His victory over Charles Albert in Custoza meant that the potentially most organised and dangerous uprising for the Austrians was defeated. He then went on to regain control of the Central Duchies in 1849. The rapid recovery from internal struggles by the Austrians was hugely significant in the failings of the revolutions in Italy in 1848 as it meant that the forces that had controlled Italy for the past half-century were ready and able to repress any advance made on their control, without distractions from other parts of the Austrian Empire. Nevertheless their job was made vastly easier by the isolated revolts, which individually were very easy to overcome, whereas a united Italian armed force may have posed more of a problem and had more chance of succeeding.

This fragmentation and difference in ideologies meant that revolutions were much weaker than a joint one would have been. No coordination between revolts or groups meant that the Austrians easily defeated each uprising in turn. There was no sense of nationalism and most uprisings were about local ambitions rather than an Italian purpose. A lack of a common cause and previous inter-state rivalries, as well as division economically between the north and south rendered groups isolated and caused them to fight alone. The revolts also arose over the period of two years, meaning that each could be suppressed in turn, posing little problem for Austria, whereas if they had happened at the same time, they may have stretched and overwhelmed the Austrians. Local ambitions such as driving out Austria, obtaining a constitution, establishing a republic and becoming independent fuelled the uprisings, and consequently there was no common grievance behind which to unite. The fact that uprisings such as the one in Sicily actually wanted independence or separatism rather than unification made a united force and so revolution impossible. Even Charles Albert did not truly want unification. He fought primarily to defeat republicanism and so retain the powers of monarchy. The difference in ambitions and lack of desire for unification meant that the revolts were isolated and lacked coordination in timing. This was a very important factor in explaining why the risings failed in 1848 as it meant that revolts were quickly and effortlessly crushed by the Austrians and peasants didn’t unite under a common banner.

Peasant masses then being excluded from participation in new political systems is a lesser reason for the failed revolution, but does further emphasise the divides in Italian society and so lack of unity or common purpose. They did not even trust each other enough to revolt unanimously. Rather than working together, the upper classes feared the peasants and so left them out of newly formed systems. As a result, peasant needs were not catered for and so the peasants found themselves no better off. This lack of social policy from the liberals meant that peasants were no happier with the newly formed political systems and so did not support the revolution fully; if indeed at all. Conditions did not improve and consequently peasants did not particularly care about Austrians seizing control again. Although a minor factor, with a social system that included and looked after peasants, the revolts may have gained a lot more public support as well as fighters and therefore had a larger chance of success.

The liberals as well as letting down the peasants were let down themselves by the Pope. Pius IX defected from his role as champion of the liberal causes through his Allocution in April 1848. He condemned Italian nationalists, rejected the Risorgimento and refused papal troops the right to help drive out the Austrians. This was a bitter blow to Charles Albert and other Catholics and forced many to choose between religion and political principles. This therefore decreased the numbers of fighters and revolutionaries and so weakened the revolts. Liberal and nationalist movements also became more anticlerical. The defection of the Pope from his previous stance of supporting the nationalists was a relatively important factor as it deflated many revolts and took away a common cause of religion for them. However, even more important was his action of appealing to France for help.

This help that Louis-Napoleon sent in the form of 20000 troops defeated the Roman Republic and in doing so defeated possibly the two men most likely to succeed; Mazzini and Garibaldi. Louis-Napoleon sent troops to crush the rising in Rome in order to secure the votes of French Catholics. However, this meant that French help in other revolutions around Italy was ruled out. As was shown in the later revolutions that succeeded, foreign help was vital. A distinct lack of this can be deemed another reason for the failure of the 1848 revolution. This was an important factor, although less so than division and Austrian recovery, as it ruled out the possibility of the two legends in Mazzini and Garibaldi rallying the entire nation behind them after successfully holding Rome.

The most important reason for the failing of the revolutions in Italy in 1848-1849 was Austrian dominance and their speedy recovery from internal problems. This meant that all revolts were easily snuffed out and military force became very difficult to use successfully. Admittedly the revolution would have stood a much greater chance if the divisions between Italians did not exist and if all revolts had been simultaneous but even with this it would have taken more troops than the Italians had to oust Austria. As seen in the later successful revolution, Italy would need the support of foreign troops to secure victory. This portrays the Pope’s actions along with Louis-Napoleon’s to be important but on balance the Austrian supremacy was the vital and most important reason for the failing of the 1848 revolution as it asserted its overwhelming military strength on fledgling and divided revolutionaries, crushing them wholly.

How valid is the claim that the Liberal social reforms 1906-1911 created a welfare state?

A welfare state is the idea that the state cares for you from “the cradle to the grave,” providing benefits, pension, free health service and a free education system. The term was not actually used until the 1940s but for the purposes of this essay I shall consider the meaning of the term. It is fair to say that the Liberals did lay many of the foundations for a welfare state, most notably a conceptual one rather than solid acts, as many of their reforms were patchy and adhoc. The Coal Mines Act, Minimum Wage Act and Labour Exchanges are just a few of the many reforms that started to build up a welfare state. However, the reforms were by no way comprehensive and many were below the expectations of the public at the time. Some were made due to pressure put on the government and many were adhoc; being made to combat a problem when one arose. In this way the reforms can be made to seem patchy and in no way building a strong foundation for the modern day welfare state.

The Liberals did go some way to creating a welfare state through their various reforms and by 1911 many minorities were better cared for by the state. They intervened in parenting, providing free school meals for the needy through the School Meals Act of 1906 and compulsory medical inspections through the Medical Inspections Act of 1907. This concept was a revelation as it showed that the state had some responsibility for the welfare of the youth, whereas previously it was deemed that parents were solely responsibility for their children. This idea has been strengthened today and so this is an example of the Liberals creating the beginnings of a welfare state. The Liberals also imposed work hours for the first time. Admittedly these were only for certain workers, i.e. the coal mines act and set pay for sweated workers in the Trade Boards Act, but these acts showed that workers were also now thought to be the responsibility of the state as well as of their bosses. This is again apparent today with work hours imposed and a minimum wage set up and so this shows the foundations of a welfare state being set uo through the Liberal reforms. The Liberals also created labour exchanges, which still exist today as job centres. This showed that the government accepted that some unemployed were not jobless through their own idleness. It by no means was a complete solution or help, but it was the idea behind it that helped create a welfare state. The Pensions Act of 1909 showed yet again that the state had responsibility for the welfare of the elderly. It was by no means a great solution as it was only for the very old and poor, whereas many thought it should have been for 65 and over, but it covered another sector of the population. The Liberal reforms of 1906-1911 were not fantastic in themselves, in that they were not expansive enough and they did not cover enough of the population, but it was the concept that the state should be involved in peoples’ lives and should have an active role in caring for the needy that was revolutionary. The reforms covered many minorities, mostly the needy or elderly, and this paved the way for the welfare state as we know it today.

The fact that the reforms only covered a few minorities is one of the major arguments against the Liberals creating a welfare state. Their reforms were limited to certain sectors, for example the elderly with the Pensions Act and sweated workers with the Trade Board Act. Most of society didn’t benefit and so the idea that a welfare state looked after everyone from birth until death is not true. However, many argue that the fact that the reforms covered only minorities is unimportant as they covered the most desperate and helpless in society. Another factor that could be considered an argument against the Liberal reforms creating a welfare state is that they were made on an adhoc basis. They were created to solve problems that arose rather than to create a welfare state for the good of the people. A good example of this is the Coal Mines Act, which set work hours for coal miners. This was only passed due to the previous two months of strikes from the miners. It was done to solve a problem rather than to protect the workers. This Coal Mines Act also shows that many of the reforms were done because of pressure on the government. All the reforms could be seen as giving in to pressure due to the surveys conducted in the previous years in Britain into poverty and living conditions. These surveys cajoled people into pressuring the government for reforms. They all made the Liberal government look good and so a cynic can claim that they were done for personal gain rather than for a welfare state. Voters encouraged by improved conditions were more likely to vote Liberal. It was not just conditions that improved; the economy did as well. National Efficiency was a big idea at the time and a better motivated, harder working workforce was believed to improve the economy greatly. With the USA and Germany overtaking Britain economically rapid changes needed to happen. This can portray the reforms as ideas to help Britain economically rather than socially with a welfare state. However, it is more likely that the reforms were introduced as they benefited both the economy and social condition of Britain. Another reason why the reforms can be seen as not creating a welfare state is the fact that they could be seen as being passed to negate the Labour Party’s appeal. The Labour Party made many of these bills and by passing them off as their own ideas, the Liberals “stole the thunder” of the Labour Party and made them appear obsolete. An important argument against the case that the Liberals created a welfare state was the limitations of the reforms themselves. They were very stunted and didn’t cover many eventualities. For example, the Pensions Act was only for people aged 70 and over when most people died at 65. It also only paid out a meager amount to those who earned very little already. It was not comprehensive enough and could be seen as “half hearted.” Other examples include the Acts that were not made compulsory such as the School Meals Act. However, the fact that they were made compulsory later shows that the Liberals believed in them eventually.

The Liberal Reforms definitely did lay the foundations for a welfare state although they were by no means comprehensive. They improved living and working conditions, albeit for minorities. They brought in the concept of a welfare state, which is the most important factor. Their reforms were not comprehensive, were adhoc and were done for various dubious reasons other than humanitarian ones but the welfare state was begun and what is more it was a success as it still exists today.

Explain why the United States withdrew its forces from Vietnam in 1973

Vietnam was a French territory until the Japanese captured it in WW2. After the end of the war, the French attempted to retake it, but were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu. By 1963, the South Vietnamese president, Diem, was deemed too corrupt to support, and Diem was soon overthrown in a coup. In 1963, America decided to become more involved in Vietnam and the Bay of Tonkin incident gave them the trigger they needed to launch into the Vietnam War.
America entered into the Vietnam War in 1964. They did this mainly because of their policy of containment and the domino theory. This was the theory that if one country fell to communism, the neighbouring countries would soon fall. By 1973, however, the Americans had withdrawn their troops from Vietnam. There were many factors that led to the withdrawal of US troops. These included long-term factors: US tactics and Vietcong response, change is US tactics, the draft, media, the Ho Chi Minh trail, guerrilla warfare, high loss of US life, financial cost and the fact that it was a long war; short-term factors; the Tet offensive, My Lai, break down in peace talks and the policy of Vietnamisation; and turning points; the Tet offensive, Johnson’s resignation and President Nixon’s policy of vietnamisation.
In this essay I am going to study all these factors and conclude with an explanation of why the United States withdrew its forces from Vietnam in 1973.

The US tactics and the Vietcong response to them was a long-term factor that led to the withdrawal of US troops in 1973. The dense jungle terrain in Vietnam meant that the Americans adopted a tactic called “search and destroy.” This involved searching South Vietnamese villages for members of the Vietcong and killing them. It was largely unsuccessful due to the South Vietnamese villagers harbouring and protecting the Vietcong and frequently ended up in the killing of innocent civilians. This was covered by the media and caused outrage in America. It also alienated the South Vietnamese people further. Another American tactic was to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail; a network of tracks and paths that the Vietcong used to send supplies from North Vietnam to the Vietcong in the South. The US attempted to bomb it throughout the war but the supplies were simply shifted between paths. The Vietcong also built an underground tunnel network. This meant that supplies and troops could be kept safe underground whilst the Americans wasted money on bombs that were useless against their sub-terrain enemies. The Vietcong tactics were guerrilla; always ambushing, sabotaging and hiding, rather than fighting an all out war. These tactics meant that the Vietcong could survive against the much greater numbers of American troops. The Vietcong’s guerrilla tactics caused great confusion and anger amongst the US troops. It was extremely demoralising for them and led to the American troops committing terrible atrocities such as the My Lai massacre.

The change in US tactics was a long-term, contributory factor of the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam in 1973. The Americans began to use napalm and Agent Orange to fight against the guerrilla tactics. These bombs decimated entire villages and defoliated whole jungles. This raw destruction coupled with the extensive media coverage of the war meant that the US public saw very vivid acts of destruction and were horrified that innocent civilians were having their homes burned to the ground. This led to civilian pressure. These tactics also alienated the South Vietnamese people further, provoking them to assist the Vietcong. This infuriated the US troops and hugely weakened their morale, leading to terrible atrocities such as the My Lai Massacre. The draft was another US tactic used. It was conscription into the US army and focused especially on younger, less able recruits. These inexperienced and frightened 18-21 year olds were up against the vastly experienced and totally dedicated guerrilla Vietcong. These young men began to wonder why they were fighting a battle for people who didn’t want them there. This led to confusion and anger amongst the troops and events such as at the My Lai Massacre in March 1968. This event, in which Charlie Company executed an entire village population of over 300 people, was a short-term cause of the withdrawal of US troops. It horrified the US people and provoked mass protests in America. The high profile trial of Lieutenant William Calley, which ended in a prosecution for the death of 109 civilians, was the clearest evidence that the war had gone wrong. The media covered these events and the images and stories of atrocities they unearthed outraged the public and lead to the peace movement.

The media coverage of the Vietnam War is a long-term, decisive factor that led to the withdrawal of US troops. It is closely linked to civilian pressure, which is another long term contributory factor. The Vietnam War was the first war covered by the media. It brought shocking images of executions, bombings, burning villages and maimed troops into the US public’s living rooms. These horrors of war coupled with the feelings of the South Vietnamese interviewed, caused civilian pressure in the US. Surveys showed shocking statistics including financial figures, such as that it cost on average $400,000 to kill one member of the Vietcong and that the war was costing $30 billion per year. Figures also emerged from the media about casualties, such as that 58,202 US died during the war, 61% of US troops were 21 or under and that over 300,000 Americans were wounded in the war. These figures coupled with the images led to civilian pressure in America and events such as the Kent State killings, where 4 student protesters were killed. This reaction of the US public made the troops in Vietnam further question why they were fighting this war. It demoralised them and pressured the government to withdraw them from Vietnam.

A turning point in the Vietnam War was the Tet offensive, which took place in 1968. It was a major offensive from the communist troops in which they drove the American forces back to the US embassy in Saigon. The Americans drove them back soon after but it showed that the Vietcong could never be defeated and the futility of the American war. This realisation that they couldn’t win the war was a massive turning point. The resignation of Johnson was another turning point in the Vietnam War. It showed that the war had gone wrong. The newly elected president was Nixon, who introduced his policy of Vietnamisation, starting the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. These were turning points in the war and lead dramatically towards the withdrawal of US troops in 1973.

President Nixon’s policy of Vietnamisation was a short term, decisive factor that led to the withdrawal of US troops. It was a way of withdrawing troops without it looking like a defeat. It involved training and equipping the South Vietnamese army, so that they could take over the war from the Americans. This policy was very successful the withdrawal of US troops began. A Vietcong offensive in 1972 failed to capture Saigon and following this a ceasefire was agreed. By the end of 1973, all US troops had left Vietnam and the war was over for the Americans.

All of the factors that I have studied contributed to the withdrawal of US troops. They are all interlinked and arguably without many of them, the withdrawal would not have happened when it did. The most decisive long term causes were the media and the tactics used by both sides. The lack of American experience at guerrilla warfare led to decreased morale among troops and this in turn led to atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. These tactics and the media are strongly linked, as without the media, these images of atrocities would never have reached the US public and therefore never provoked the protests that they did. Also, without the tactics, the media would have never caused so much pressure to be put onto the US government, as the images of decimated villages and executed civilians were key to the peace movement. The Tet offensive was an extremely important decisive factor. It meant that both sides were more willing to reach an agreement and made the Americans realise that they could never win the war. The My Lai massacre was also an important contributory factor, as it outraged the US public, arguably leading to the Kent State killings. President Nixon’s policy of Vietnamisation was probably the most important turning point in the Vietnam War. It led directly to the withdrawal of US troops in 1973. I conclude that all the factors contributed to the withdrawal of US troops in 1973, but that the media, the US and Vietcong tactics, the My Lai massacre, the Tet Offensive and Nixon’s policy of Vietnamisation were the most important.

Assess the causes of the October Revolution

The October Revolution was instigated by the Bolsheviks but would not have been possible without 3 other main factors. The demise of the provisional government, the failure of the other political parties and the expertise and leadership of Lenin and Trotsky are all vital in explaining why a revolution occurred in October 1917.

The Bolshevik party enjoyed a huge growth throughout 1917 which contributed hugely to the revolution. Membership rose from 24,000 in February to 340,000 in October, providing the necessary manpower required to launch a successful campaign and create a “snowball” effect of increasing support. Only the Bolsheviks were able to exploit the power vacuum created in October 1917. As Miliukov; the Kadet leader at the time, stated, “They knew where they were going, and they went in the direction which they had chosen.” The Bolsheviks had direction from Lenin, whilst the other parties did not. The Bolsheviks’ ruthlessness did not guarantee success but it meant that other parties would have to overcome them in order to seize power. A key strength that differentiated the Bolsheviks from the other parties was their commitment to the Petrograd Soviet. They regularly attended the Soviet, displaying political dedication, contrasting greatly with the rival parties who failed to attend. The Bolsheviks presented themselves in the Soviet as a party of action; the only party who were truly dedicated to their aims. Furthermore, a general radicalisation amongst urban masses and particularly the growth of workers’ committees in the factories who were anti-government aided the Bolsheviks at a key time. The Bolsheviks gained this new sector’s support by utilising the key slogan, “Peace, bread and land.” This played on all the Provisional government’s failures and included the peasants. The Bolshevik party’s growth in support prior to October was an extremely important factor in the October revolution but was invariably controlled and encouraged by the inspirational leadership of Lenin. After all, it was him who devised the slogan, “Peace, bread and land,” solely to gain the support of the peasants.

Lenin is the dominant figure throughout the October revolution, claiming much of the success as his. This is, however, with good reason, as under his control the Bolshevik party flourished. They gained drive and ambition and set their sole aim of gaining power, rather than the other parties who had longer, unattainable aims such as waiting for a peasant proletariat to be ready to seize power. Lenin was arguably selfish, uncompromising and considered solely his own aims. Nevertheless he was a brilliant tactician and leader, drawing in key support as he needed it. The best example of this is him changing the Marxist philosophy to include peasants, as Lenin realised they would be vital in securing power. Lenin’s timing was also crucial and he managed to appear on the scene at vital moments. His return to Russia in April 1917 meant that he took control of his party and moulded them into a party with a specific goal and intention. Trotsky carried out the organisation of the coup and was critical on a micro scale to the success of the Bolshevik takeover. He himself viewed Lenin as fundamental, but claimed that, “If neither he nor Lenin had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no revolution.” Lenin was a vital leader and Trotsky his able manager. Trotsky also played an important role in the success of the Bolsheviks through his position as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. The role of Lenin and Trotsky was an extremely important cause of the October revolution as without them the Bolsheviks would have had no direction or drive and would had appeared very similar to the other revolutionary parties at the time. Lenin ensured the Bolsheviks were in the right position at the right time to seize power.

The other parties were definitely not in a position to seize power, and their incompetence actually made revolution more likely. They accepted the February revolution and were happy to wait for the Constituent Assembly. Therefore they did not attend the Soviets and the Bolsheviks became the key revolutionary party; although small. The other parties also cooperated with the Kadets which opened them to Bolshevik propaganda that they had sold themselves out to the bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks were also the only party opposed to the war and this was a fundamental weakness of the other political parties, who tied themselves to a sinking ship. The Bolsheviks were the only option for people once the war was failing. This meant that Bolshevik ranks were swelled and so they could mount a revolution. Power in Russia would go to the most flexible and ruthless party and with the multiple failures and weaknesses of opposition parties, this fell to the Bolsheviks. The failures of other parties was important in causing the October revolution, as had the parties been strong, they could have mounted opposition to the Bolsheviks and aided or prolonged the provisional government’s time in power; long enough perhaps until elections could be held in November. It was not as important as Lenin or the Bolshevik strengths, however, as simply eradicated a possible obstacle in the Bolsheviks path rather than allowing the overthrow of the Provisional Government itself.

The demise of the Provisional government is an extremely important issue in causing the revolution in October as a strong government may have been able to hold together until elections in November 1917. By October the Kornilov Scandal had left Kerensky isolated and he was further deserted by the Petrograd Garrison when revolution broke out. Arguably, this was because of the problem of dual authority and the military’s allegiance with the Petrograd Soviet and MRC, but Kerensky did nothing to improve the situation. The government had not dealt with Russia’s problems. The war was still ongoing, causing loss of morale as well as economic and social hardship. The peasants were still angry about the land issue and would be a potent force in the October revolution. The impact of the continuation of the war and the land issue meant that a revolutionary spirit was brewing in some areas and the Bolsheviks gained much support due to their anti-war policy and their open promise of in particular; land. The provisional government were compromised from the beginning due to their make-up of a large proportion of land owners. Therefore they were against sharing the land out and this angered workers; leading to a swell in the Bolshevik ranks. The provisional government failed further when they failed to destroy the Bolshevik party during the July Days. This was crucially important as without the Bolsheviks the October revolution would never had occurred. The most important provisional government’s weakness was that they had never been meant to last – they were “provisional.” This meant that when revolution broke out, no one ran to their aid. It had always had to contend with the Petrograd Soviet. The weaknesses of the provisional government were essential in their downfall but perhaps less so for explaining why the revolution occurred in October. The provisional government simply inadvertently helped Lenin to succeed in his coup rather than causing it.

Planned November elections would have legitimised the provisional government and so it was vital that revolution occurred before this. Lenin provided the ambition and drive to do this while Trotsky made it work. Admittedly the strains of war on economy and society may have caused discontent but this would probably have resulted in a new democratic government rather than a socialist takeover. The role of the Bolsheviks was important as they managed to take advantage of the situation in a limited timeframe, but most important of all was Lenin’s influence and actions. He formed a small party and managed to seize power with it under his grasp and direction. His timing of arriving in Russia was impeccable and without him the Bolsheviks would not have stood out as the party for change since before Lenin returned, they were just another side party with similar ideals as the other revolutionary parties, i.e. were not anti-war. The demise of the provisional government and failure of the other parties were lesser causes of the October revolution as they didn’t halt the progress of the Bolshevik party. Lenin was instrumental in the period prior to the revolution and it was his input that caused a revolution at all.

copyright freehistoryessays.blogspot.com