The Inevitability of the Bolshevik Revolution

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which took place towards the close of World War I, was an inevitable event in Russian history; however, its success had less to do with tactics as it did with timing. This paper seeks to analyze how and why the Bolsheviks succeeded: how the unpopularity of the War, coupled with the haggard state of the Russian economy, the changing social order, and Tsar Nicholas II's aversion to political reform culminated into certain victory for Lenin and his acolytes.

Prior to its entrance into World War I, the Russian Empire enjoyed an era of unparalleled modernization and expansion. This was due in no small part to the efforts of Peter I to westernize its culture, Catherine I to broaden its territorial scope, and Alexander I to establish its military preeminence. Its downward spiral did not begin until the abolition of serfdom in 1861 during the reign of Alexander II.[1] While, on the surface, this would seem to have been a step in the right direction towards socioeconomic reform - something much sought after in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century - it was instead met with anxiety by the Russian people. Abolishing serfdom had not eliminated the economic dependency of many former serfs on the wealthy Russian landowners. Some of these former serfs were able to migrate to Russia's growing industrial centers; however, once there, many were still left disconsolate by the overcrowded urban housing, poor sanitation, and long work hours they encountered. By the turn of the century, the Russian Empire was in socioeconomic crisis.

A growing wave of social discontent sparked off in 1905, following Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, as a mass of irate peasants marched on the tsar's Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to petition Nicholas II for reform measures. These included improved civil rights, anti-poverty measures, and labor reform.[2] This, of course, would go down in history as the "Bloody Sunday" massacre when imperial troops opened fire on the crowd, killing more than a hundred and wounding some three-hundred more.[3] Revolution ensued.

This was not to be the revolution many of the Russian proletariat were hoping for, however; its October Manifesto and subsequent creation of the Duma only served to delay the inevitable. The Duma - while, in theory, a liberal democratic body, with a functioning electorate and prime minister - offered only piecemeal political representation for the Russian masses. Compounding this inadequacy was the perpetual thwarting of all its political initiatives by the tsar, who dismissed the Duma four times in a span of eight years - once in 1906, twice in 1907, and again in 1912 - for being "uncooperative." Even newly elected Prime Minster Peter Stolypin failed in his attempts at agrarian reform for lack of tsarist support.[4] Indeed, Nicholas did not merely fail to support reform measures following the 1905 revolt: he sought to further consolidate his autocratic powers. Even after the creation of the Duma, he "retained huge executive and legislative powers, including the control of the army and foreign policy, the right to dissolve the Duma and to dismiss his ministers." [5] Had Nicholas genuinely sought to redress the socioeconomic problems facing Russia in 1905 he might have forestalled the Bolshevik revolution altogether. Nicholas chose instead to ignore the growing discontent of his people and to rule as he had always done: embracing autocratic tradition over common sense. It is thus that a discontented Russian people, their economy in stagnation, were led into World War I.

By early 1917, three years into the War, with more than 11 million peasants conscripted, transportation and communication lines hampered, food shortages rampant, and war casualties numbering in the millions, Russia was once again rife with revolutionary sentiment. Revolution broke out in the streets of St. Petersburg on February 22^nd. The tsar dispatched imperial troops to put down the rioters - machine factory workers and their wives protesting the bread shortages - by force; however, said troops instead joined the cause of the revolutionaries.[6]

Having thus lost control of his people and his military, Nicholas was forced to abdicate on March 2^nd. A provisional government was established in Petrograd to replace him; however, this government was viewed by many in the Petrograd Soviet to be as weak as the Duma had been under Nicholas. This weakness was successfully propagandized via the Kornilov Affair: an alleged attempted military coup against the Provisional Government which the Soviets had to putdown in September.[7] Enter the Bolsheviks who, by this point, had successfully infiltrated the Soviet ranks. Under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin, freshly returned from his exile in Switzerland, the Bolsheviks represented an evocative political movement aimed at empowering the peasantry of the proletariat through socialism and fair land reapportionment. Most popular among their political aims, though, was the total military withdrawal of all Russian forces from the War; this was later realized under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Bolshevik Revolution overthrew the Provisional Government in October 1917, declaring a Soviet-run socialist state.[8]

Though it took more than a decade to reach fruition, the Bolshevik Revolution was inevitable. The Bolshevik movement actually started in 1903 when Lenin first parted ways with the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; Lenin was, however, unable to lead the movement in any effective way following the 1905 Revolution when he went into exile. Still, Bolshevik sentiments festered in Russia even in Lenin's absence, especially among the Soviets who viewed the meager political gains made in the 1905 Revolution (i.e. the Duma) as disingenuous and insufficient. So long as the tsar reigned, they asserted, true reform would never be achieved in Russia. This sentiment was exemplified by Nicholas' callous treatment of the proletariat throughout his reign. But even with the shambles the Russian economy was in leading up to the War, it was not until 1917 that Bolshevism had sufficiently mobilized to lead a viable insurrection against the tsar and the subsequent provisional government. War casualties coupled with food and resource shortages catalyzed the Bolsheviks and their supporters into revolutionary action. As noted at the beginning of this paper, it was timing rather than tactics which secured the Bolshevik victory. A successive series of events and hardships had to occur in order for the Bolshevik Revolution to succeed. Whereas before the War the Russian people had been faced only with socioeconomic stagnation, the War itself presented the real possibility of total socioeconomic collapse and the potential for German occupation. It was this fear that ultimately garnered the Bolsheviks the support they needed to successfully and utterly reform the Russian government.

[1] "Background Note: Russia," US Department of State: Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm (accessed 16 March 2007).

[2] "Petition Prepared for Presentation to Nicholas II on "Bloody Sunday" (January 9, 1905)," Documents in Russian History, translated by Daniel Field, http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/bloodysunday.htm (accessed 17 March 2007).

[3] Jerry H. Bentley and Herbert F. Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past, Volume II, 2^nd Edition (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 916-917.

[4] James Wilkinson and H. Stuart Hughes, Contemporary Europe: A History (New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004), 79-80.

[5] HW Poon, "The Russian Revolution of 1917,"Russian Revolutions: 1905-1917, http://www.thecorner.org/hist/russia/revo1917.htm (accessed 16 March 2007).

[6] Anthony Esler, The Western World: A Narrative History. 2^nd Edition. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), 606-608.

[7] David W. Koeller, "Kornilov Affair: 1917," Russia and Eastern Europe Chronology, http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/EastEurope/Kornilov.html (accessed 17 March 2007).

[8] Esler, Western, 606