Lenin’s leadership was the main reason for Bolshevik success in October
1917. How far do you agree?
Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015
European Option: Modern Europe, 1789-1917
Syllabus 9389
Paper 21
Lenin can be seen as the major key figure in why the Bolsheviks seized power during the
October Revolution of 1917. Many historians believe that without his expert leadership and
his ability to give powerful speeches the Revolution would have failed or been delayed by
many years. Only two months before the Revolution Lenin still felt that a Marxist Revolution
would not be possible in his life time. Lenin’s return to Petrograd from exile in Switzerland
with the help of the ‘enemy’ Germany would enable him to take charge of the party. At this
time the Bolsheviks were a small party with opposition from other Revolutionary groups.
Many felt including many in his own party that Russia as a predominantly agricultural
society was not ready for a workers revolution. Many factors would play into Lenin’s favour
at the time and make an almost bloodless revolution possible.
Firstly, the Provincial Government was becoming increasingly unpopular. Their leader
Kerensky favoured the idea of moderate policies, meaning reforms were slow or non-
existent. The peasants were unhappy with the lack of land reforms and there was unrest
and violence throughout the countryside. The lot of the industrial workers in the cities had
not improved and violent strikes were increasingly common. Moreover, a new constitution
and an elected parliament had not been formed. In reality little had changed in Russia since
the fall of the Tsar and the people were becoming increasingly agitated. The nail in the
coffin for the Government would be the actions of the commander-in-chief of the army
Kornilov. The’ Kornilov Affair’ as it would be known was when Kornilov marched on
Petrograd with an army to put down the Bolsheviks by force. The attack was a failure with
many soldiers refusing to back the government and the Bolsheviks gained popular support
by leading the resistance among the workers. Kerensky was discredited and portrayed as a
German sympathiser and Kornilov was dismissed and accused of an attempted military
coup. The Military Revolutionary Council, dominated by Bolsheviks took control of
Petrograd and Lenin was able to return from exile. The Provincial Government lacked
support and were powerless to stop the certainty of a peoples Revolution.
Secondly, without the devastation of the First World War it is unlikely that the seeds of
Revolution would have been sown. The Russian army had suffered huge losses and an end
to war with Germany was remote. The Government with financial help from Britain and
France continued fighting. By 1917 the Russian people and the majority of the army wanted
to agree a peace. The war had been harsh on Russia both through loss of life but also
through the hardships the people at home suffered. There were shortages of food and
Lenin’s call for ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ in his ‘April Theses’ would be a popular slogan that
1917. How far do you agree?
Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015
European Option: Modern Europe, 1789-1917
Syllabus 9389
Paper 21
Lenin can be seen as the major key figure in why the Bolsheviks seized power during the
October Revolution of 1917. Many historians believe that without his expert leadership and
his ability to give powerful speeches the Revolution would have failed or been delayed by
many years. Only two months before the Revolution Lenin still felt that a Marxist Revolution
would not be possible in his life time. Lenin’s return to Petrograd from exile in Switzerland
with the help of the ‘enemy’ Germany would enable him to take charge of the party. At this
time the Bolsheviks were a small party with opposition from other Revolutionary groups.
Many felt including many in his own party that Russia as a predominantly agricultural
society was not ready for a workers revolution. Many factors would play into Lenin’s favour
at the time and make an almost bloodless revolution possible.
Firstly, the Provincial Government was becoming increasingly unpopular. Their leader
Kerensky favoured the idea of moderate policies, meaning reforms were slow or non-
existent. The peasants were unhappy with the lack of land reforms and there was unrest
and violence throughout the countryside. The lot of the industrial workers in the cities had
not improved and violent strikes were increasingly common. Moreover, a new constitution
and an elected parliament had not been formed. In reality little had changed in Russia since
the fall of the Tsar and the people were becoming increasingly agitated. The nail in the
coffin for the Government would be the actions of the commander-in-chief of the army
Kornilov. The’ Kornilov Affair’ as it would be known was when Kornilov marched on
Petrograd with an army to put down the Bolsheviks by force. The attack was a failure with
many soldiers refusing to back the government and the Bolsheviks gained popular support
by leading the resistance among the workers. Kerensky was discredited and portrayed as a
German sympathiser and Kornilov was dismissed and accused of an attempted military
coup. The Military Revolutionary Council, dominated by Bolsheviks took control of
Petrograd and Lenin was able to return from exile. The Provincial Government lacked
support and were powerless to stop the certainty of a peoples Revolution.
Secondly, without the devastation of the First World War it is unlikely that the seeds of
Revolution would have been sown. The Russian army had suffered huge losses and an end
to war with Germany was remote. The Government with financial help from Britain and
France continued fighting. By 1917 the Russian people and the majority of the army wanted
to agree a peace. The war had been harsh on Russia both through loss of life but also
through the hardships the people at home suffered. There were shortages of food and
Lenin’s call for ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ in his ‘April Theses’ would be a popular slogan that
