Bolshevik Revolution, coup d'etat?

Question

Do agree with most Western historians who claim it was basically a coup d'etat or do you think it really was a revolution from below? Maybe there weren't crowds marching up and down in the streets as one observing socialist realist art would be inclined to think, but the lack of enthusiastic crowds does not really mean lower class people were discontented with the revolution. What do you think?

sdvwallingford, the second duma met in 1907. There was not a single Bolshevik elected but there were 47 Mensheviks. In the Third Duma there were 19 Bolsheviks and in the Fourth one, which met in 1912 there were 15 Bolsheviks deputies.

Imperial American

"you're question is poorly worded =)"

it is "your". Also I don't want you to reply any of my questions, I infer from the questions you ask in our section that you have problems with your identity. I'm sorry but I cannot help you with that.

Answer 1

The Russian Coup d'Etat: November, 1917
The indecisive Kerensky, already minister of war and navy, became Prime Minister soon after the first failed Leninist coup. His response to the putsch was, strangely, to alienate his military supporters (Pipes in particular argues forcefully that Kornilov and other military figures jailed by Kerensky were not in fact plotting against him) while thwarting any serious effort to neutralize the Bolsheviks. As Pipes notes, Kerensky "even deprived the Military Staff of the authority to arrest Bolsheviks and forbade it to confiscate weapons found in their possession. As the end of July, he looked the other way as the Bolsheviks held their Sixth Party Congress in Petrograd." Kerensky soon ordered the release of all but a few of the Bolsheviks from prison, including Trotsky, so that by October 10 (old calendar) "all but twenty-seven Bolsheviks were at liberty and preparing for the next coup."(The Russian Revolution) Largely under Trotsky's control due to Lenin's absence, the Bolsheviks intensified their manipulation of the soviets; upon winning control of the Moscow and Petrograd soviets, they set up their own national soviet organization, even though on the national level the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were still the dominant parties. The Bolsheviks cleverly split off a faction of the Social Revolutionaries, known henceforth as the "Left SRs," which enabled them to keep up the pretense of sharing power with other socialist parties.

Answer 2

I believe personally that it was a coup d'etat. Bolshevik leaders broke into the winter palace during the October Revolution and siezed power from the Provisional Government. In addition to this, many Bolsheviks argued that the time wasn't right for the seizure of power, because according to Karl Marx, whose philosophies were the basis of Bolshevik ideals, in order for socialism to prevail, a capitilast state must fall beforehand, a capitalist state which had not developed in Russia. Although the Dumas had been successful, there was not significant support for the Bolsheviks for a revolution to occur from below.The fact that there were not hordes of people who were discontent with the Provisional Government protesting for change supports the view that, to an extent, the revolution could not have been a a revolution from below, because there was not a significant working class population that desired change, crucially there were fafr more peasants than there were workers and this fundamentally led to the civil war and the oppression of Kulaks and peasant class during collectivisation and industrialisation. Therefore the October revolution was a revolution from above, controlled by key members of the Bolshevik party.

Answer 3

There definitely was a lot of support for the Bolsheviks, (the second Dumas which met at the begining of WWI was almost completely Bolshevik), but in the end the Bolsheviks did seize the government and take over. First, they stormed the Winter Palace and forced out the Provisional Government. This was ordered by the Petrograd Soviet, not any sort of national organization. Then, when the representatives from around Russia arrived for the new parliament that had been elected, they were met by Bolsheviks who simply told them to go home, there already was a government in place.

Answer 4

definite, i think of that's honest to assert. Lenin substitute right into a powerful character. He snuck into the rustic, as a results of fact he's one in all those risky guy, he could have been killed or despatched into exile returned. in certainty, it substitute into the Germans (who have been at conflict with Russia on the time) who gave him a journey through prepare from Swittzerland into Russia. Lenin easily moved quickly the Bolsheviks alongside and alter into impatient to snatch ability. yet be careful: there could have been a revolution and civil conflict in Russia with Lenin or no Lenin. in certainty, in July of 1917, infantrymen and workers spotaneously revolted without waiting for the Bolsheviks to organize something. through 1917, with WWI persevering with, foodstuff shortages, and a regular state of anarchy. That the Bolsheviks controlled to clamp down administration on the anarchy in St.Petersburg is by using Lenin's management although.

Answer 5

It was a true revolution and there were crowds marching up and down the street. If you read "Ten Days that Shook the World" by the American journalist John Reed who was an eye witness to the events then you will realise the level of discontent among the soldiers, sailors and peasants.

Answer 6

It was more of a coup d'etat. There had been a civil war because not everyone wanted to be under Communist power. The Communist's sudden rise into that power and their control over the entire nation shows that they crushed the resistance to them.

Answer 7

The revolution that lead to the fall of the Czar was popular. Afterwords Lenin seized power from the social democrats and their government. Communists hated democracy except their form of "democratic centralism," or rule by party leadership.