Why Were the Bolsheviks Able to Seize and Retain Power in Russia - Coursework Example

Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize and retain power in Russia, while the revolutionary left in post war Germany failed to do so? Introduction Prior to 1917 Revolution, Marwick and Waites (114-199) notes that Russia was under absolute autocratic rule and this made most Russians dissatisfied. Particularly, there were incidences where Russians were subjected to ruthless killing by the Russia Leader, Tsar Nicholas II. For instance, the Bloody Sunday massacre that took place left most people dead. Peaceful and unarmed demonstrators were heading to present to the Russian leader a petition when the Imperial Guard gunned them down. Besides being ruthless to his people, Nicholas II was known as Bloody Nicholas because of executing political opponents, conducting military campaigns that were hitherto of unprecedented scale, steering the Khodynka Tragedy, causing the 1896 mass panic that resulted to over1,389 deaths and conducting consecutive anti-Semitism pogroms. However, Marwick, Simpson and Emsley (116-189) notes that year 1917 marked the beginning of a revolutionized Russia, a revolution that has never before been experienced in Russia. The Bolsheviks were only a fraction of Russia Social Democratic Labour Party but Vladimir Lenin, Bolsheviks leader managed to triumph over Russia with minimal violence and bloodshed. Most importantly, the implications and importance of the take over were widespread and drastic thus resulting to the end of the absolute autocratic rule in Russia. Putting into consideration of the Ruthless nature of Nicholas II, the big question that arises in most people’s mind is; how did the Bolsheviks seize and retain power while revolutionary left in the post war Germany had failed to do so? Military breakdown According to Roberts and Morris (212-256), World War 1 outbreak in 1914 led to the Battle of Tannenberg that saw over 30,000 troops wounded or killed and more than 90,000 captured while their opponents, Germany only had a loss of 20,000 casualties. Nicholas took direct command in order to oversee the war and left an incapacitated wife, Alexandra to control the government. By 1916, Russia loss was over 1,800,000 soldiers with a million soldiers missing and 2 million held as prisoners of war. Poor government management led to limited ammunition and rifles and Nicholas sent unarmed men to war hoping that they could garner equipment from the fallen soldiers. The soldiers felt that they were inhumanly treated; they felt that they were merely considered as raw materials that could easily be squandered for the purpose of maintain power ad being rich. This diminished their morale and in 1915-1916, most of them retreated. Most of the soldiers constituted the peasants and this meant that if they lacked ammunitions, they also lacked fortunes that they could feed their families with and the military breakdown therefore transformed into a national wide outcry as war became an oppressive inevitability. Roberts and Morris (256-314) further notes that Lenin seized the opportunity and garnered enough soldiers to support him so that he could eradicate the authoritarian rule and come up with a government that cared for its people. This made it difficult for the government to garner support from the soldiers when it came to opposing the Bolsheviks. Simply stated, the soldiers were already supporting the Bolsheviks. Weak display of power in Russia by Nicholas II As Marwick and Waites (199-245) puts across, to ensure a successful ruling over people in Russia, strong leadership was a fundamental. However, Tsar Nicholas II never had any outstanding leadership qualities that would ensure that he had control over his people without subjecting them to cruelty. He basically had total control over bureaucracy an army and therefore, he never allowed others to help him in his ruling. Laws that were passed by the Duma (parliament) were vetoed by tsar and this made it impossible for any shared rule. Being a conservative ruler that he was, Nicholas continued to maintain the strict authoritarian system. The society and individuals were expected to exhibit devotion and self restrain to the community and social hierarchy. Religion helped to bind the tenets together as people sought reassurance and comfort from it. Nicholas therefore attached his future and fate to the notion that he was an infallible and saintly. This idealized vision blinded him from seeing the actual state he subject his people to with his authoritarian rule and believed that the people owed him unquestionable loyalty and devotion. By 1900, the Russians were discontented and majority of them who constituted of the peasants were subjected to work in fields the entire day so that they could manage to feed their families. This resulted to widespread poverty that was eminent in lower classes and with the presence of less land to work on, peasants had to move to cities so that they could find work in the factories. In the factories, they were subjected to appalling conditions. The peasants became much poorer and hungrier as the rich became wealthier. This culminated into the 1905 Bloody Sunday demonstrations and as people got killed, Nicholas II proved to the Russians that he was relentless in sharing power, unsympathetic and quite distant to his people (Marwick, Simpson and Emsley, 256-267) As a result Gatrell (45-166) indicates that Russians begun demanding that the leader hears their voice through the endless strikes they conducted. Nicholas claimed that the Duma (parliament) would serve the people but he gave the parliament no real powers. Tsar secret police (Okrana) arrested those who opposed Nicholas and imprisoned or exiled them. Trade unions got banned and strict press censorship was introduced. This made things worse as the aristocracy and middle class persons (majority) criticized the government for being oppressive and incompetent. Widely, this made people realize that something had to be done to halt the excessive governmental powers. When the food prices started going up in 1917, his subjects contemplated on getting rid of him by making him abdicate his throne. His subjects eventually did so and the Bolsheviks saw this as a chance for power acquisition, something that revolutionary left in post war Germany never took notice of and never realized the circumstances as an opportunity of power acquisition. Strong Bolsheviks leadership Gatrell (187-256) explicitly shows that Lenin, the Bolsheviks leader was driven by desire and energy. As a, Marxian socialist, he believed that a successful worker’s party depended on the control of the revolutionaries and intellectuals. His steadfast devotion paid him off as he rose to become a leader of the Bolsheviks, a political faction that attracted thousands of supporters especially the working peasants. Despite the fact that they were small in numbers, Lenin managed to instill discipline in them and this made it easier for him to control and maintain them. The party had ministers (party’s commissars) and the president, Lenin. This clearly showed that it was a tight organization that was bound to succeed. Lenin knew of the most successful ways that he could garner supporters. He knew that in a time of economic and social difficulties, war was the last thing that the Russians were anticipating for. He therefore made sure that violence would be as minimal as possible. He sought Leon Trotsky who assisted him in his Bolshevik power. Trotsky became the leaders of the military revolutionary committee and this made the Bolsheviks gain military power and call an end to war. Most soldiers abandoned the army and went back to their families. Lenin also knew that most Russians were hungry and were never inclined into starting a war and therefore, he pooled a huge number of supporters with his message ‘Peace, bread and land.’ This made it possible for Lenin to take over the control of the government immediately after Nicholas stepped down. He rallied Bolsheviks in seizing control over Congress of Soviets and with majority of the Russians government under Lenin’s control; he took- over Russia (Gatrell, 256-300). When the Bolsheviks took over, Lenin was able to maintain the Bolsheviks leadership by taking people’s voices into consideration. He passed reformed that gained people’s favour, gave the landless peasants some land, issued direct control of the independent factories to the local workers committees and destroyed opponents to his beliefs and reforms. In 1918, the Constituent Assembly got disbanded by the army and this made the Russians quite furious to an extent that they formed armies in attempt to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Roberts and Morris ( 345-380) states that Lenin sent his red army to mitigate the revolt and even though the white army won the war, Lenin managed to destroy the white army. As a good leader, he learnt from his mistakes and started using the Cheka, secret to avoid resurgence of the civil war. This way, he was able to keep a close watch on his people and suppress any opponents A well structured Bolsheviks party Sakwa (26) elaborates how the Bolsheviks party played a huge role in enabling the Bolsheviks to acquire and maintain power. In its principle, upon organizing the revolution, the party was to transfer power to the working class that was organized in Soviets. Bolsheviks knew that the Soviets contained non-Bolsheviks, Mensheviks who were unreliable and a threat to their power but they also knew that the Soviets represented the majority; peasants who would make the Bolsheviks acquire and maintain power by offering the Bolsheviks their support while taking over Russia. The Bolsheviks party therefore promised the Soviets that upon power acquisition, they would have the mandate to control the working class. Upon power acquisition, Bolsheviks delivered to the Soviets what that had promised but also ensured that they were the only major party representatives (proletariat) and had complete entitlement to primacy. This is how they managed to come up with a one party controlled state to ensure that they were the only ones who ruled. They simply blinded the soviets, their major threats to power with a portion of power acquisition that created an association between the Bolsheviks and the Soviets, an association that silenced the Soviets and prevented them from being radical or opposing the them. To reconcile the party’s relationship, the Bolsheviks based their association on division of labor (peasants’ most worry); the party basically provided the ideological leadership but allowed the Soviets to be given their due respect as the party that represented the working class. This catered for the needs of the majority Russians and at the same time, avoided power conflicts between the Bolsheviks and the Soviets. The 8th party congress acknowledge that the party should only guide but not replace the Soviets, the Bolsheviks major threat to power. To safeguard Bolsheviks power, Sakwa (26) indicates that the party sent the best cadres and commissariats to work in Soviets. As the Bolsheviks expanded the state, members of the party diffused into the state and formed the kernel of the political system that helped the Bolsheviks uphold power. However, the party still maintained its organization coherence and by 1921, a networked part of committee with democratic centralism principles emerged with the lower bodies being the subordinates of the higher bodies. This allowed the Bolsheviks to gain total power. The arm and party cells lost direct control of their respective institution, mass independent organizations were eliminated and special groups such as Communist League of Youth (Komsol) came into being. Basically, the Bolsheviks made sure that all the organizations formed were formed under the ‘party spirit.’ Sakwa (26) notes that this instilled the Bolsheviks principles into the people and the Bolsheviks became know as the only people who had total control and total power over Russia. The aim of the party was to ensure that other political parties such as the Soviet do not undermine the Bolsheviks efforts in maintaining their power and organizations that posed as a threat to destabilizing the Bolsheviks power did not exists. This is why they demolished all the organization and only allowed organizations formed under their party’s principle to exist. Conclusion Basically, we can see that the Bolsheviks were able to seize and maintain power because they had strong leaders that were able to garner enough Russians to support them. Additionally, unlike the revolutionary post war Germany who fought through war that further aggravated the conditions of the Russians and made the Russians detest them more, the Bolsheviks were never inclined into starting war for the sake of gaining power. They incorporated another favourable strategy; they took advantage of the harsh economic, political and social conditions and provided a platform through which people could not only air their grievances ‘Peace, bread and land’ but also fight for their rights by bringing an to Nicholas authoritative rule. This way, he garnered enough support that made him overthrow the government and take over. Additionally, to retain their rule, the Bolsheviks leader catered for Nicholas shortcomings by addressing people’s concern whereby peasants were given land, banks were nationalized and factories were placed under direct control. When there arose major differences between the Russians such as civil war that arose due to Constituent Assembly, Lenin carefully suppressed the revolts and mitigated the occurrence of such disagreements and upheavals by placing the secrete police, Cheka to monitor people and maintain law and order. Even though he was still authoritarian and also executed his opposes, he catered for the needs of his people and this made Bolsheviks retain power (Roberts and Morris, 400-456). Works Cited Gatrell, Peter. Russias First World War: a social and economic history.2005. London: Pearson/Longman Marwick, A. and Bernard Waites. The Impact of World War I. 2001. Vatican City: Open University Worldwide. Marwick, Arthur , Wendy Simpson and Clive Emsley. Total war and historical change: Europe, 1914-1955. 2001. New York City: Open University Press Roberts, john Morris. Europe, 1880-1945. 2001. London: Longman. Sakwa, Richard. Soviet politics in perspective. 1998. London: Routledge. Read More