Lenin, having arrived from Switzerland in a sealed wagon to engineer revolution in Russia, acted upon a presumption that the European war would soon be transformed into a world-wide revolution and a civil war. Time would soon prove him partially right, for the official cessation of hostilities on November 11, 1918, meant, more often than not, a kind of quaint projection of the external fronts into the sphere of domestic struggle. As it unilaterally withdrew from the conflict, Russia led the way, with war petering out and then flaring up again in the form of an all-out battle for the future of the fallen empire. Germany then, the provisional victor, soon followed the suit, becoming a scene of its own civil war. Out of the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire emerged new states, among which Hungary stood somewhat apart with its pro-Bolshevik, Soviet government. At one time or another, as Paxton writes, "the red flag flew from the Clydeside of western Scotland to Siberia" - a nigh-universal phenomenon giving rise to a plethora of dramatic epithets, all pertaining to capture the essence of those years: "European Civil War," "Eurasian Times of Trouble", etc.
Yet, contrary to Lenin's forecast, forces claiming to embody the most radical aspect of the Revolution, succeeded only in Russia. What Bolsheviks achieved remained an unfulfilled dream for their Hungarian counterparts (Bela Kun and Company), the Spartacists, workers in Milan and Turin, various forms of red regimes in Hamburg, Munich or Vienna. The question then is simply why the Bolsheviks succeeded where others had failed? Were Russian conditions in 1917 so distinct from the European situation one year later that the Revolution had to halt within the bounds where it began?
Yet, contrary to Lenin's forecast, forces claiming to embody the most radical aspect of the Revolution, succeeded only in Russia. What Bolsheviks achieved remained an unfulfilled dream for their Hungarian counterparts (Bela Kun and Company), the Spartacists, workers in Milan and Turin, various forms of red regimes in Hamburg, Munich or Vienna. The question then is simply why the Bolsheviks succeeded where others had failed? Were Russian conditions in 1917 so distinct from the European situation one year later that the Revolution had to halt within the bounds where it began?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan be answered briefly - because the Bolsheviks , unlike other " competitors " to power, was the idea - clear and close to the people. For me though , it's the people, not trash .
ReplyDeleteThat's why the people behind this very power life laid . And did not support those for whom was scum .
It first. Second, the majority supported the Bolsheviks " cream " . Do you think that the civil war won Kotovskij Brigade Commander , Commander Budionny , Divisional Chapaev legendary Shchors ? No, it won the king's officers , tribal nobility . They had developed brilliant operations ( in a hopeless situation , actually ) and bring them to life . Ignatiev , Brusilov , Lebedev , Kamenev and so on - the birth , among other things , from the very top . In the Red Army served 75 thousand Tsarist officers , and the " White " - 35 thousand.
But the leaders were not the last . Ulyanov , for example , a nobleman .
How did they do ? Very simple. While the others squabbled over the throne , the Bolsheviks took power . With the help and support of the people .
Who was nothing will become everything .
You know what I mean? It's not about a cook , Governors State. Lenin did not mean it . He was referring to the so-called law " of cooks children " when education could not get anyone not smart, but only the rich . And after the Revolution, education became compulsory . First primary, then secondary . A little more, and came to be higher .
What caused the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917?
1) Dad, I want to eat!
2) Capitalists - not those people who are willing to share with anyone. They have such a profession - rob compatriots. Pre-legitimize this business.
I absolutely agree with comment of Мухамедияр Нурабаев. Your question was "why the Bolsheviks succeeded where others had failed? ", in my opinion the answer is very simply, Bolsheviks were PROFESSIONAL revolutionaries, thats why they had succeeded. And the second question was "Were Russian conditions in 1917 so distinct from the European situation one year later that the Revolution had to halt within the bounds where it began?", i think yes, because Lenin was very smart, UNIQUE leader.
ReplyDeleteI am so sorry for late response.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion,the Bolsheviks achieved such significant results because of:
Firstly,the organization of labor.Bolsheviks's party skillfully used and combine different tactics.They were able to combine various nation movements and of course,revolution's driving force, poor peasants.Bolsheviks even pre-created its own army "Red Guards",which always was ready being in the right place.
Secondly and the most important fact,head of the Bolsheviks's party was brilliant strategist Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.Lenin was practices revolutionist,but basically Lenin was doer, not a crusher.Exactly this idea( create new world) played crucial role in Bolshevicks succeed.
Thirdly reason of Bolsheviks succeed was simple luck.Good concatenation of circumstances allowed them to achieve results,such as the authority of country and starting absolutely different chapter in Russian history.
I`m interested which kind of luck do you mean? you gave me an idea to write my comment
DeleteI've still read Reed's book and I have the feeling that in 1917's in Russia there were many, many speakers that speech, a lot, everywhere. And "mere mortals" like those whose speech is more persuasive. "Eloquence, like the fair sex, has too prevailing beauties in it to suffer itself ever to be spoken against. And it is in vain to find fault with those arts of deceiving, wherein men find pleasure to be deceived." (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book III, page 43). And who do you think they is? Of course, the Bolsheviks represented by Lenin, Trotzky and so on. They say: "all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers." And people believe them.
ReplyDeleteAlso there were parties that " doesn't permit them to remain here and be responsible for these crimes ", and some of them " joins with the declaration of the Mensheviki and Socialist Revolutionaries and will leave the Congress." (John Reed, 10 days, 62p.). In simple words, the Bolsheviks did what they want. This is my second version of answer for your question.
if there would be a heart sighn here, i defenetly would press it!!! Really like that you used some sources
DeleteThere are many opinions about the victory of Bolshevik's party. One of the popular foreign ideas is that many of the leaders of Bolsheviks such as Trotsky and Zinoviev were Jewish, but Solzhenistyn wrote in his book that the Bolsheviks were controlled by Germany in order to get Russia out of the war. Western sources believe that the main weapon of Bolsheviks was in Lenin' book called "What is to be done?", where he had described the prerequisites to create a successful, but illegal party. However, historians are skeptical about the conspiracy theories. I think that the victory of the Bolsheviks in 1917 was determined by their unity and a precise strategy. Mensheviks were perceived by the people as the imperial power, also they seemed to be closer to the bourgeois, while the Bolsheviks were always closer to the working class. Also in contradistinction to the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks had one leader Lenin, who had clear goals and position. He believed that his party can consist of as revolutionary intellectuals and the working class, but still he was concentrating on the proletariat. In "What is to be done?" (1902) Lenin invokes people to the centralization, strict discipline and single ideology, which also, in my opinion, emphasizes his leadership skills.
ReplyDeleteThe Bolsheviks were resulting from Russia's Social Democrat Party. After the gathering part in 1903, they had one guide; Lenin. He was the excuse for why the Bolsheviks succeeded. The Bolsheviks financed their work by gathering upheld thefts, which were what Lenin alluded to as? Unfortunate necessities. Just people or organizations convey state trusts were focused on. Lenin was a determined man who accepted that the individuals who might lead the specialists must be learned tip top, equipped for doing things that an uneducated greater part proved unable. He additionally created a set of convictions that might speak to the working population. The point when the 1917 Revolution was great finished, the Bolsheviks regulated Petrograd. yet that was just a little some piece of Russia! The authorities in the Provisional Government in Moscow looked for spread in the Kremlin. It took some days of overwhelming shelling to get them to surrender. All around Russia, the Provisional Government fell and the Bolsheviks took control. A few regions set up a great battle. Kiev, the old capital of the Ukraine, attempted to oppose the Bolshevik takeover. Bolshevik control was shaky in the outskirt locales of Siberia. It was strongest in Central Russia and in the enormous urban areas by and large where loads of laborers.
ReplyDeleteBolsheviks succeeded because they had the organization, coordination, planning and goal setting.
ReplyDeleteIn other words,from all the forces to that period only the Bolsheviks clearly could say what they are going to do specifically. Others remained to shout in futile traditional style "for all the good against all the bad things"
May be their opponents were better in some options, but nonetheless
they were passive, inarticulate, hesitant.
In 1917, after the February revolution , power passed to the Provisional Government . But they have vade some slowness in making agricultural, workers, and national issues led to creation of various parties across the country , and then the Bolsheviks proclaimed socialist revolution in Russia. They acted actively and vigorously , they had popular slogans such as: "The world - to people ," " Earth – to peasants ," " Factories – to workers." By September they started wining and prepare for an armed uprising. On one of their congress , they overthrew the Provisional Government and issued V.I.Lenin as a head of government. The Bolsheviks are professional revolutionaries , they have succeeded because they had some reasons , such as : Bolsheviks had an accurate answer to all questions that were interested by people( factory workers , the agrarian question ) . They also had a plan to seize power , they had weapons and people .
ReplyDeleteReasons for the success of revolutions internationally is imperialist world war , in connection with the foreign powers failed to provide armed assistance to the Russian bourgeoisie.
It is important to clarify that in the 1917 October Revolution , the Bolsheviks won because they were a centralized political force , which had extensive ties with the masses, and , knowing full well the desire of the people, put forward slogans that reflected the desires of the masses - an immediate end to the war and the promise of a just peace with the right to national self-determination up to secession ; immediate transfer of land to the peasants , the immediate convocation of the Constituent Assembly , the introduction of workers' control in the factories , abolition of the death penalty even for deserters from the front.
ReplyDeleteAmong the reasons for the victory of the October Revolution include: leadership of the revolution by the working class , which was the main driving force of socio- political development of the country , the union of the working class and the poor peasantry , who was able to overcome the resistance of the exploiting classes ; weakness of the bourgeoisie ; guide the masses purposeful Bolshevik Party .
Among the causes of an international character to the success of the revolution , it should be noted imperialist world war , during which foreign powers could not offer immediate armed assistance of the Russian bourgeoisie , as well as support of the international proletariat , which has limited the capacity of their governments.
I think the Bolsheviks had the advantage in this situation due to the ability of manipulating the masses. More precisely, to inspire them with all sorts of promises written on the posters, as well as a variety of slogans that reflect the desire of the people - an immediate end of the war, the promise of transferring land to the peasants, the abolition of death executions even for deserters from the front, etc.
ReplyDeleteAt that time Russia was struggling with its enemies on the First World War. It spent lots of money, human resources and led the country fell into the economic disaster. The people were angry for the hunger and poverty. There were so called objective and subjective conditions for the revolution. Lenin and other Russian opposition leaders were preparing to head this revolution soon after arriving onto Russia from western immigration. Since the war was developing the route for them was closed and special preparation was needed. While most of opposition was waiting for the moment, Lenin decided to take risk and went to Russia on the sealed train. On Finland rail station in Petrograd he declared his April theses alone and received support from angry crowd. Thus Mensheviks and SRs lost the moment of taking leadership and needed to oppose to the new leader whom became Lenin. His April theses include such terms as “no war”, “land to people”, “power to the nation”. So I want to say that the involvement of Russia into the First World War helped to start revolution.
ReplyDeleteAs been narrated the beginning of the 1917 was faced with the political crisis in all fighting countries. The autocracy of Russia verged to the deep crisis. The overthrow of autocracy in Russia embodied a wide international response. In Europe, the February Revolution was perceived with democratic forces and the mass of people saw this situation as a signal to struggle against war. By then the area of social and political life was based on two ideologies- Bolshevism and Fascism were emanated as two totalitarian regimes. However, Bolshevism and Fascism are not the same regimes even if they had some external similarities. They are disparate regimes. Bolshevism had a progressive character in Russia. Fascism regime in Germany, Italy and Spain was conservative, because they were based on nationalism and racism. Therefore, Europe was divided into two war camps. This is the difference of Russia conditions to the Revolution in comparison to Europe situation.
ReplyDeleteI am terribly sorry for my late reply!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Bolsheviks succeeded not because of their organized politics. At that time whites and peasants did not have enough authority. But the fact that Bolsheviks were pure leaders it is obviously. Only Bolsheviks chose the way of terror. They made the repression, they did not only judged people because of their points of view, but also for their society classes.I think that the totalitarian dictatorship was the most important reason for their success.
When the king involved Russia in the First World War, unprepared army and the whole of Russia was not ready to fight. As a result, they failed, the economy exploded. The Bolsheviks offered the people exactly what they wanted. They promised to turn the royal power. They asserted that they are able to stop the war. They urged people that there will be the equality of people, equality of nations. They promised to take away land from the landlords and give to peasants, deprive plants from the capitalists and give to workers .They pledged to destroy all capitalists and exploiter. In other words, Bolsheviks promised the people 'Light Life '. Good agitation is one reason of their success among other parties. Also, the Bolsheviks used in their tactics instruction of Karl Marx. In my opinion, the success of the Bolsheviks among others parties associated with the comparative amounts, I mean Bolsheviks were more. We can assume that on their success may also influenced cruelty, which they used, and which played a significant role.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason that Bolsheviks came to power and succeeded was that they were able to win over the majority of depressed people on their side. The interests of Bolsheviks and people allegedly matched. The living conditions of citizens was really poor, unemployment rate was high, the prices of good were too. In this strained situation, The Provisional Government was weak and made a lot of mistakes and wrong decisions, therefore lost authority among the people. Whereas, Bolsheviks did a determined struggle with good politics of Lenin. They won thereby politics they held, with the democratic slogans stated that people would live well. However, in fact it was not so.
ReplyDeleteAt the begining of Russian Revolution, bolsheviks only have been began more popular, and whole world did not predict that bolsheviks won a fighting. At this period, when in Russia was Temporarily Government, government did not have enough power and "social weight", the managers was kadets.It had a several type of parties which include monarchist, kadets,mensheviks,etc, monarchist and kadets was on the side of monarchy, mensheviks is a part of socialists-intellegents, which was againts of dictator of working class, which were bolsheviks. Human beigs was wated for changes, because country was full off breakdown, in all aspcet, in social-economical life. Bolsheviks made a lot of organization works,meetings, they had aspecial planned program, but the main they have a leader, which a mass of peole was sure in him and follow for these ideology. also they have a different types of propagandas.
ReplyDeleteI really apologize for my late response, tried to satisfy your expectations.
ReplyDeleteI want to begin my comment not with the Russian empire, but with other ones. Many of my classmates wrote a lot about it. Let me write about revolutions in a comparing way. Firstly, we were asked, why Spartans failed in the battle? Well. it`s necessary to know that there were not 300 of them(only 300 pure spartans), but actually 9000(militias of Greek cities)/ By the time, when decisive clash came, Leonid had only 5000 of fighters. He realized that Xerxes`s power was bigger and odered minitias of Grrek cities to leave the battlegraund. 2000 of soldiers took the fight with the Spartans. So, they have lost the battle because of minority. Secondly, we were also asked, why Milan and Turin workers didn`t success in the revolution? The answer is: Workers were ready to fight. Farmers were ready to go to the side of workers. The rulling class was paralyzed. But, there was no revolutionary Marxist leadership. The tragedy was that in the critical moment the revolutionary faction was not organized, which could lead the workers. The Socialist Party was founded as a Marxist party. Unfortunatly, it adapted to bourgeois society during the years of leadership, and it resulted their movement to the Right wing( bad side). The other reason of the fail was Serrati. He was a leader of Maximalists and in the Second Congress of the Comintern, held in July 1920, he declared:"We do not need to talk with Turrati (the leader of the Right wing). Our aim is to organize a revolution". From the first sight it seems like he supported revolution, but in practice he betrayed the Left wing. They prepared a defeat, in condition that reformists would maintain its influence in the party.
From these given examples, it is clear to say that they were unsuccessfull because of the shortage of people, wrong way of organization or even betrayal. In case of Russia, everybody noticed that most of population (workers) shared the ideas with Bolsheviks. Strong slogans, posters played their role in the spectacle. Also, leaders as Trozky, Lenin could perfectly persuade everyone in the equality of all nation. On the other hand, I think that a time gave them an oppatunity to win. For instance, in early centuries the technology was not developed, not everyone could connect with each other quikly. In contrast to xx century, when phones and telegrams were available and many people could be able to take part in the revolution( of course if he or she had a wish)/ Meruert gave me an idea. or as she called a luck. To conclude, time also played a great role.
I know it is too long
DeleteAkmaral, I am not talking about the Spartans, but about the "Spartakists" - the German party on the extreme left of the political spectrum which then evolved in the Communist Party of Germany.
ReplyDeleteI think in Russia,there was not any governments aspects. Everyone do what they want. Lenin's forecast about Russian and European revolution was right,because it was his plan.Plan of Lenin to construct new government in destroyed empire.
ReplyDeleteTriumph of the revolution in enormous country was evidenced of the support of Bolshevism ideas by the masses. Furthermore, it was evidenced of opponent's weakness. Revolution was made possible by economic and political crisis, weakness and mistakes of Provisional Government, decline in its authority, energy of the Bolsheviks and political skills of Lenin.
ReplyDeleteThe Bolsheviks won with democratic slogans. Maybe, the masses didn't fully aware, that they made a socialist choice, in 1917.
For the question why the Bolsheviks succeeded where others had failed I have several reasons. First of all provisional government during their work they didn't solve the major issues in the country, but only made matters worse. Secondly,starvation in the country. And also Bolsheviks agitated actively. They promised land - peasants, factories - workers. I mean Bolsheviks understand nations psychology and understand radical sentiments of people at that time. Lenin and his associaters offered close and comprehensible to the masses slogans and ideas: equality, social justice, peace and land to the peasants, the power to Soviets .
ReplyDelete