‘Lenin’s role in bringing about the collapse of the Provisional Government on October/ November 1917 was pivotal.’ Explain why you agree/disagree with this view

Lenin was the Bolshevik Party leader who believed in a proletariat revolution, with the Provisional Government (PG) being a development of the Progressive Bloc now replacing the tsarist regime after the abdication of Nicholas II. The collapse of the PG on October 24th- 25th was after the Red Guard stormed the Winter Palace, with the Prime Minister, Kerensky, fleeing. Overall, I agree with the statement, that the collapse of the PG was largely due to the role of Lenin, although I understand that the influence of other individuals, such as Trotsky, did have some significance. Furthermore, I explore the extent to which the weakness of the PG was to blame for its collapse and the idea that the October Revolution was a political coup rather than a popular uprising. 

One way in which Lenin was pivotal was due to his understanding of the wants of the people, despite living the majority of his adult life in exile. He was able to establish the unique identity of the Bolsheviks that appealed to the people, with successful campaigns and slogans that were simple and effective such as ‘Peace, Land, Bread.’. Furthermore, his strong personality made him an effective orator who was confident and didn’t doubt himself, causing a tough determination to succeed with claims such as ‘history will not forgive us if we don’t assume power’. His opposition to the behaviour of the PG also showed an understanding of the people as it usually reflected their wants and needs. He opposed the continuation of the war and the government itself, despite once working with them during the Kornilov affair which only seemed to benefit the Bolsheviks. His April Theses and other works of propaganda such as ‘down with the imperialist war’, helped to gather support  from 10,000 members in late 1916 to over 100,000 in April 1917. This shows he was pivotal to the collapse of the PG as he had the ability to rally people and reduce the governments support, furthermore, he displayed the weakness of the government by targeting the masses vulnerabilities and undermining the government's authority. 

Moreover, Lenin’s role was significant due to his intellectual credibility and the Bolshevik adaption of their ideas. The Bolsheviks adapted their slogans to become effective and so they would appeal to a range of people, they simplified their ideology to suit the circumstances and so took advantage of the weak society of 1917. In this way Lenin was pivotal as he was organised and seized any opportunity, being ruthless in this respect. An example of this was his April Theses of the 7th April 1917 which called for a struggle for a socialist programme based on the independent action of the working class, he hoped this would help in his persistence for a proletariat revolution. Lenin was effective and so crucial due to his significant targeting. The adapted ideology was designed with the sailors in mind whilst he also  gave the people what they wanted to hear through the slogan ‘All Power To The Soviets.’ Lenin was, therefore, aware the support of the army would be important in overthrowing the Provisional Government which made him a deep thinker with a well-planned strategy. Furthermore, he exploited the weaknesses of the Provisional Government so that there would be no major support seeking to keep the government or oppose his new regime, for example, the unequal distribution of power through legislation like Order Number 1. In this way, Lenin was pivotal by carefully putting in place tactics that would only ever lead to his success even before he attempted to seize power. 

However, a way in which Lenin wasn’t pivotal was the idea that the government was already facing unique problems of 1917. These were: the continuation of the war, land redistribution and the inherent weakness due to a lack of legitimate authority. This led people to believed the PG were incompetent, just as the tsar had been. These issues weren’t addressed by the government and so the people of Russia argued that they still only cared about and concentrated on the needs of the aristocracy. The obvious discontent was seen in all unaddressed issues. The continuation of the war leads to a naval mutiny with a high rate of desertions at 25% whilst the issue of land distribution lead to anarchy in the countryside through the killing of land owners and land grab. Furthermore, their failure to improve society was largely due to the idea that they believed they didn’t have legitimacy. Kerensky refused to make major constitutional changes until after the Constitutional Assembly of November 1917 which would give them legitimacy through a vote. People didn’t see a difference between the PG and the tsar with conditions not improving. Just like they had with the tsar, people wanted an alternative. hence why the soviets were once os important (which the Bolsheviks recognised.) The weakness of the government only played into the hands of the Bolsheviks and aided their quest for power. Additionally, their lack of legitimacy meant that people didn’t trust them whilst their inability to produce major improvements that would make them more accepted than the tsar was only furthered people’s discontent. The Russian people, such as the Kronstadt sailors, seeing the government not using their authority, illegitimate or otherwise, meaning they joined soviets that held great importance in the new democratic system. 

Another reason why Lenin was pivotal was his capitalisation of other groups lack of interest in soviets. By the Autumn of 1917, many people who had once attended daily soviet meetings began to lose interest and stopped participating. The strict discipline of the Bolsheviks by Lenin to keep high attendance meant that a Bolshevik dominance was embedded in the soviets by Autumn 1917. The extent of the power was that of holding a majority in most of the soviets whilst basically running the most influential soviet: the Petrograd Soviet. This was due to the Soviet’s shift to the left whilst the government shifted further to the right; another way in which the PG was out of touch with their people and their wants. Furthermore, there was a degree of influence for this outside of Lenin through Trotsky. Trotsky was influential in the October Revolution as he was the Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet by September 1917, building up the Red Army and helping set up the Military Revolutionary Committee. In this way, Lenin wasn’t pivotal as, arguably, without the help of Trotsky and his organisation of the Petrograd Soviet, the revolution would not have been as successful. However, Lenin did understand and recognise the key role the soviets would play in legitimising his revolution and so was pivotal in this respect. Moreover, he heightened the power of the Bolsheviks which meant they didn’t necessarily need the support of the masses if they were already significant in such an influential body. Lenin was pivotal through his strategy of dominating the soviets before taking power, having a direct order before rushing into a revolution having learnt from past revolutions mistakes. Through this, he was able to exploit the weakness of the government in Dual Power and the significance of the soviet and Order Number 1. 

Alternatively, it can be argued Lenin way pivotal due to the weakness of the government early on as a result of dual power. This was due to Order Number 1 which gave an unequal distribution of power between the Petrograd Soviet and the PG with the former being the more powerful through the implementation of Order Number 1. However, with this being said, it is important to note that, just like the February Revolution, the October Revolution was just in Petrograd and not nationwide/ nationally endorsed. Despite this, Lenin still wasn’t pivotal as without the poor judgement of the Kerensky in agreeing to Order Number 1 and allowing the Soviet to have the upper hand, he would not have been in as successful a position to take power. He wouldn’t have had a valid reason to exploit his influence in the Soviet and seek a majority. In this instance, it was the undermining of authority by the Petrograd Soviet without the influence of Lenin that led to the collapse of the PG. 

Another reason why Lenin wasn’t pivotal to the collapse of the PG was the weak leadership by Price Lvov and Kerensky. They made substantial errors in who they trusted and acted instinctively on many issues rather than logically, such as the July Days and the Kornilov Affair. The poor judgment by the government after the July Days to put Kornilov as a General in a position of power which gave him the ability to attack is a large example of their poor leadership. From this, it may be argued that had the government had better control of Russia from the beginning, preventing the July Days, they may never have collapsed. They Kornilov Affair only benefited the Bolsheviks who agreed to back the government. This freed imprisoned Bolsheviks and armed them, leaving the government with an opposition they were indebted to who now had the ammunition for an attack. This error was full as a result of an ill espied government for making major decisions rather than the input of Lenin, they had to rely on their opposition and soviets due to a lack of control of their own army. The weakness of the government is also in the fleeing of Kerensky from the Winter Palace on 25th October 1917when it was stormed by the Red Guard, showing that he wasn’t even willing to fight for his government but would rather surrender. In this way, it was the poor judgement of the PG leaders, not Lenin’s influence, that lead to their downfall. This had a knock-on effect which would later lead to their collapse. Had they had better control of Russia so the July Days never occurred, Kornilov would never have reached a position pf power to attack the PG and weaken them further whilst empowering the Bolsheviks. Alternatively, it may be argued that, although Lenin was lucky the circumstances benefited the Bolsheviks, it may have been as a result of good tactics that it benefited him as he could have easily denied Kerensky the help, he was, after all, opposed to the PG. 

First and foremost, whilst seen as a ‘Russian Revolution, again, like in February, the revolution was just in Petrograd. This largely aided the Bolsheviks who had a support base of 60,000/100,000 in Petrograd alone although it was a month later until they took Moscow, spreading Bolshevik rule. However, Lenin was still pivotal in bringing about the collapse of the Provisional Government due to his effective understanding of Russian society and seizing any opportunities he was presented with, such as the Kornilov Affair. Moreover, I largely believe it was his personality that led to the success of the Bolsheviks in the October revolution. He was persistent and unique whilst being unafraid of consequences despite being frequently exiled for the majority of his adult life. With this being said, I accept that without the role of others such as Trotsky, or the weakness and unpopularity of the PG, success may have been hindered and delayed.Had the PG been stronger, they may have lasted long enough for the Constituent Assembly to gain the legitimate power they were searching for. Therefore, they would have had the masses support against the Bolsheviks to prevent a political coup. However, they had little support and the weakness of the leadership only benefited a strong, determine and organised Lenin. Overall, I still agree with the statement that Lenin’s role in bringing about the collapse of the Provisional Government in October/November 1917 was pivotal.