Skip Nav

What Happened After the Russian Revolution?

What Was the Outcome of the Russian Revolution?

❶World communism World Revolution. The Russian Revolution of was one of the most explosive political events of the twentieth century.

The Aftermath

When Was the Russian Revolution?
Who Was Involved in the Russian Revolution?
From the SparkNotes Blog

Create a free website or blog at WordPress. Papermacheworld's Weblog Just another WordPress. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: The Jewish Role in t… on Solzhenitsyn: Fascinating Year… on Solzhenitsyn: The response of the Duma, urged on by the liberal bloc, was to establish a Temporary Committee to restore law and order; meanwhile, the socialist parties establish the Petrograd Soviet to represent workers and soldiers.

The remaining loyal units switched allegiance the next day. The Tsar directed the royal train back towards Petrograd, which was stopped 14 March [ O. He did so on 15 March [ O. But the Grand Duke realised that he would have little support as ruler, so he declined the crown on 16 March [ O. The immediate effect of the February Revolution was a widespread atmosphere of elation and excitement in Petrograd. The center-left was well represented, and the government was initially chaired by a liberal aristocrat, Prince Georgy Yevgenievich Lvov , a member of the Constitutional Democratic party KD.

The model for the soviet were workers' councils that had been established in scores of Russian cities during the Revolution. In February , striking workers elected deputies to represent them and socialist activists began organizing a citywide council to unite these deputies with representatives of the socialist parties.

On 27 February, socialist Duma deputies, mainly Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, took the lead in organizing a citywide council. The Petrograd Soviet met in the Tauride Palace , the same building where the new government was taking shape. The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet believed that they represented particular classes of the population, not the whole nation. They also believed Russia was not ready for socialism. So they saw their role as limited to pressuring hesitant "bourgeoisie" to rule and to introduce extensive democratic reforms in Russia the replacement of the monarchy by a republic, guaranteed civil rights, a democratic police and army, abolition of religious and ethnic discrimination, preparation of elections to a constituent assembly, and so on.

The relationship between these two major powers was complex from the beginning and would shape the politics of The representatives of the Provisional Government agreed to "take into account the opinions of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies", though they were also determined to prevent "interference in the actions of the government", which would create "an unacceptable situation of dual power. Although the Soviet leadership initially refused to participate in the "bourgeois" Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky , a young and popular lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party SRP , agreed to join the new cabinet, and became an increasingly central figure in the government, eventually taking leadership of the Provisional Government.

As minister of war and later Prime Minister, Kerensky promoted freedom of speech, released thousands of political prisoners, did his very best to continue the war effort and even organised another offensive which, however, was no more successful than its predecessors.

Nevertheless, Kerensky still faced several great challenges, highlighted by the soldiers, urban workers and peasants, who claimed that they had gained nothing by the revolution:. The political group that proved most troublesome for Kerensky, and would eventually overthrow him, was the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin had been living in exile in neutral Switzerland and, due to democratization of politics after the February Revolution, which legalized formerly banned political parties, he perceived the opportunity for his Marxist revolution.

Although return to Russia had become a possibility, the war made it logistically difficult. Lenin and his associates, however, had to agree to travel to Russia in a sealed train: Germany would not take the chance that he would foment revolution in Germany.

After passing through the front, he arrived in Petrograd in April These included that the soviets take power as seen in the slogan "all power to the soviets" and denouncing the liberals and social revolutionaries in the Provisional Government, forbidding co-operation with it.

With Lenin's arrival, the popularity of the Bolsheviks increased steadily. Over the course of the spring, public dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government and the war, in particular among workers, soldiers and peasants, pushed these groups to radical parties. Despite growing support for the Bolsheviks, buoyed by maxims that called most famously for "all power to the Soviets," the party held very little real power in the moderate-dominated Petrograd Soviet.

In fact, historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick have asserted that Lenin's exhortations for the Soviet Council to take power were intended to arouse indignation both with the Provisional Government, whose policies were viewed as conservative, and the Soviet itself, which was viewed as subservient to the conservative government.

By some historians' accounts, Lenin and his followers were unprepared for how their groundswell of support, especially among influential worker and soldier groups, would translate into real power in the summer of On 18 June, the Provisional Government launched an attack against Germany that failed miserably.

Soon after, the government ordered soldiers to go to the front, reneging on a promise. The soldiers refused to follow the new orders. The sailors and soldiers, along with Petrograd workers, took to the streets in violent protest, calling for "all power to the Soviets. In the aftermath, Lenin fled to Finland under threat of arrest while Trotsky , among other prominent Bolsheviks, was arrested.

The July Days confirmed the popularity of the anti-war, radical Bolsheviks, but their unpreparedness at the moment of revolt was an embarrassing gaffe that lost them support among their main constituent groups: The Bolshevik failure in the July Days proved temporary. The Bolsheviks had undergone a spectacular growth in membership. Whereas, in February , the Bolsheviks were limited to only 24, members, by September there were , members of the Bolshevik faction.

Petersburg and Moscow behind the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, by September the Bolsheviks were in the majority in both cities. In August, poor or misleading communication led General Lavr Kornilov , the recently appointed Supreme Commander of Russian military forces, to believe that the Petrograd government had already been captured by radicals, or was in serious danger thereof. To secure his position, Kerensky had to ask for Bolshevik assistance.

He also sought help from the Petrograd Soviet, which called upon armed Red Guards to "defend the revolution". The Kornilov Affair failed largely due to the efforts of the Bolsheviks, whose influence over railroad and telegraph workers proved vital in stopping the movement of troops. With his coup failing, Kornilov surrendered and was relieved of his position.

The Bolsheviks' role in stopping the attempted coup further strengthened their position. Growing numbers of socialists and lower-class Russians viewed the government less and less as a force in support of their needs and interests. The Bolsheviks benefited as the only major organized opposition party that had refused to compromise with the Provisional Government, and they benefited from growing frustration and even disgust with other parties, such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who stubbornly refused to break with the idea of national unity across all classes.

In Finland, Lenin had worked on his book State and Revolution [28] and continued to lead his party, writing newspaper articles and policy decrees. By October, he returned to Petrograd St. Petersburg , aware that the increasingly radical city presented him no legal danger and a second opportunity for revolution. Recognising the strength of the Bolsheviks, Lenin began pressing for the immediate overthrow of the Kerensky government by the Bolsheviks.

Lenin was of the opinion that taking power should occur in both St. Petersburg and Moscow simultaneously, parenthetically stating that it made no difference which city rose up first, but expressing his opinion that Moscow may well rise up first. The resolution was passed 10—2 Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev prominently dissenting and the October Revolution began. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the 20th century. It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end.

Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that since Lenin was not present during the actual takeover of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky's organization and direction that led the revolution, merely spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party.

On 7 November , Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a revolt against the ineffective Provisional Government Russia was still using the Julian calendar at the time, so period references show a 25 October date.

The October revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia's short-lived provisional parliamentary government with government by soviets , local councils elected by bodies of workers and peasants. Liberal and monarchist forces, loosely organized into the White Army , immediately went to war against the Bolsheviks' Red Army , in a series of battles that would become known as the Russian Civil War.

Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party , anarchists, and other leftists created opposition to the Bolsheviks through the soviets themselves.

The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly took place in November The most notable instances of this anti-Bolshevik mentality were expressed in the Tambov rebellion , —, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually defeated along with the White Army during the Civil War. The Russian Civil War, which broke out in shortly after the October Revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of their political orientation.

Though the Allied nations, using external interference, provided substantial military aid to the loosely knit anti-Bolshevik forces, they were ultimately defeated. The Bolsheviks firstly assumed power in Petrograd, expanding their rule outwards. They eventually reached the Easterly Siberian Russian coast in Vladivostok , 4 years after the war began, an occupation that is believed to have ended all significant military campaigns in the nation.

Less than one year later the last area controlled by the White Army, the Ayano-Maysky District , directly to the north of the Krai containing Vladivostok, was given up when General Anatoly Pepelyayev capitulated in Several revolts were initiated against the Bolsheviks and their army near the end of the war, notably the Kronstadt Rebellion.

This was a naval mutiny engineered by Soviet Baltic sailors, former Red Army soldiers, and the people of Kronstadt.

This armed uprising was fought against the antagonizing Bolshevik economic policies that farmers were subjected to, including seizures of grain crops by the Communists. When delegates representing the Kronstadt sailors arrived at Petrograd for negotiations, they raised 15 demands primarily pertaining to the Russian right to freedom.

The Government then responded with an armed suppression of these revolts and suffered 10 thousand casualties before entering the city of Kronstadt. During the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement, the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the alliance each time.

However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called " Green Army " peasants defending their property against the opposing forces played a secondary role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks executed the tsar and his family on 16 July In August the Kerensky government evacuated the Romanovs to Tobolsk in the Urals , to protect them from the rising tide of revolution.

After the Bolsheviks came to power in October , the conditions of their imprisonment grew stricter and talk of putting Nicholas on trial increased. As the counter revolutionary White movement gathered force, leading to full-scale civil war by the summer, the Romanovs were moved during April and May to Yekaterinburg , a militant Bolshevik stronghold. During the early morning of 16 July, Nicholas, Alexandra, their children, their physician, and several servants were taken into the basement and shot.

That the order came from the top has long been believed, although there is a lack of hard evidence. The execution may have been carried out on the initiative of local Bolshevik officials, or it may have been an option pre-approved in Moscow should White troops approach Yekaterinburg.

Radzinsky noted that Lenin's bodyguard personally delivered the telegram ordering the execution and that he was ordered to destroy the evidence. Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of —19 , in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands.

This issue is subject to conflicting views on communist history by various Marxist groups and parties. Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country. Few events in historical research have been as conditioned by political influences as the October Revolution. The historiography of the Revolution generally divides into three camps: Lenin's biographer Robert Service , says he, "laid the foundations of dictatorship and lawlessness.

Lenin had consolidated the principle of state penetration of the whole society, its economy and its culture. Lenin had practised terror and advocated revolutionary amoralism. Dates are correct for the Julian calendar , which was used in Russia until It was twelve days behind the Gregorian calendar during the 19th century and thirteen days behind it during the 20th century.

George Orwell 's classic novella Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. It describes the dictator Stalin as a big Berkshire boar named, "Napoleon. However, Napoleon overthrows Snowball as Stalin overthrew Trotsky and Napoleon takes over the farm the animals live on. Napoleon becomes a tyrant and uses force and propaganda to oppress the animals. The Russian Revolution has been portrayed in or served as backdrop for many films.

Among them, in order of release date:. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the revolutions of For the revolution of , see Russian Revolution. History of Russia — Shooting of the Romanov family. Socialism portal Communism portal Russia portal Soviet Union portal.

Major recent works that examine themes discussed above and can serve as a guide to older scholarship Christine Worobec, Peasant Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Workers' Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, — Berkeley, The Russian Revolution — , Part One. History Teachers Association of Victoria. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution: A Personal Record , ed. Joel Carmichael Oxford, ; originally published in Russian in , —8. I was not so totally naive that I did not recognize some of the powerful taboos surrounding discussion of the Bolsheviks, particularly regarding their ethnic composition.

But with Russian Jews so much more likely to be educated and urbanized, and suffering from fierce anti-Semitic oppression under the Czars, everything seemed to make reasonable sense. Then perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, I encountered a rip in my personal space-time continuum, among the first of many to come. In this particular instance, an especially rightwing friend of evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran had been spending long days browsing the pages of Stormfront , a leading Internet forum for the Far Right, and having come across a remarkable factual claim, asked me for my opinion.

My first reaction was that such a notion was utterly ridiculous since a fact so enormously explosive could not have been ignored by the many dozens of books I had read on the origins of that revolution. But the source seemed extremely precise. One very interesting statement appears in the memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed , editor of The Times of London and one of the foremost international journalists of his era. He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts on behalf of their Bolshevik allies at the Paris Peace Conference following the end of the First World War.

Even the very recent and highly skeptical analysis in Kenneth D. Military Intelligence reports of the period directly made that astonishing claim, pointing to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers.

Now admittedly, a few details might easily have gotten somewhat garbled over time. For example, although Trotsky quickly became second only to Lenin in the Bolshevik hierarchy, in early the two were still bitterly hostile over various ideological disputes, so he certainly was not then considered a member of that party. But with so many seemingly credible and independent sources all making such similar claims, the basic facts appear almost indisputable.

Consider the implications of this remarkable conclusion. Surely without such enormous financial support, the likelihood of any Bolshevik victory would have been far lower, perhaps almost impossible. And yet by any reasonable standard, this statement appears to be more or less true, and apparently was widely known at least in rough form for decades after the Russian Revolution, but had never been mentioned in any of the numerous more recent histories that shaped my own knowledge of those events.

What other astonishing facts might they similarly be concealing? When someone encounters remarkable new revelations in an area of history in which his knowledge was rudimentary, being little more than introductory textbooks or History courses, the result is a shock and an embarrassment. But when the same situation occurs in an area in which he had read tens of thousands of pages in the leading authoritative texts, which seemingly explored every minor detail, surely his sense of reality begins to crumble.

In , Harvard University published the English edition of The Black Book of Communism , whose six co-authors devoted pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a total death toll they reckoned at million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist.

But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place. Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden, who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early years of their threatened regime, and even founded the first Soviet international bank. When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there.

Ford himself was a very interesting individual, and his world-historical role certainly received very scanty coverage in my basic history textbooks. As for The Dearborn Independent , Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a national basis not long after the end of the war, intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to Jewish misbehavior, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets.

I had been aware that he had long been one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America, but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper, previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national circulation of , by , ranking it as the second largest in the country and by far the biggest with a national distribution.

I found no easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue, but apparently the anti-Jewish articles of the first couple of years had been collected and published as short books, together constituting the four volumes of The International Jew: Eventually my curiosity got the best of me, so clicked a few buttons on Amazon. Based on all my pre-suppositions, I expected to read some foaming-at-the-mouth screed, and doubted I would be able to get past the first dozen pages before losing interest and consigning the volumes to gather dust on my shelves.

But what I actually encountered was something entirely different. Over the last couple of decades, the enormous growth in the power and influence of Jewish and pro-Israel groups in America has occasionally led writers to cautiously raise certain facts regarding the untoward influence of those organizations and activists, while always carefully emphasizing that the vast majority of ordinary Jews do not benefit from these policies and actually might be harmed by them, even leaving aside the possible risk of eventually provoking an anti-Jewish backlash.

As an example, there was no claim that Schiff or his fellow Jewish bankers had funded the Bolshevik Revolution since those particular facts had not yet come out, only that he had seemed to be strongly supportive of the overthrow of Czarism, and had worked toward that end for many years, motivated by what he regarded as the hostility of the Russian Empire towards its Jewish subjects.

This sort of discussion is not all that different from what one might find in a modern Schiff biography or in his Wikipedia entry, though many of the important details presented in the Ford books have disappeared from the historical record. Although I somehow managed to plow through all four volumes of The International Jew , the unrelenting drum-beat of Jewish intrigue and misbehavior became somewhat soporific after a while, especially since so many of the examples provided may have loomed quite large in or but are almost totally forgotten today.

Most of the content was a collection of rather monotonous complaints regarding Jewish malfeasance, scandals, or clannishness, the sort of mundane matters which might have normally appeared in the pages of an ordinary newspaper or magazine, let alone one of the muckraking type.

However, I cannot fault the publication for such a narrow focus. The articles were also aimed at gradually expanding the window of public debate and eventually shame other periodicals into discussing Jewish misbehavior. When leading magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Century Magazine began running such articles, this result was cited as a major success. Another important goal was to make ordinary Jews more aware of the very problematical behavior of many of their community leaders.

And although the details of these individual stories differed considerably from those of today, the pattern of behavior being criticized seemed remarkably similar. Change a few facts, adjust the society for a century of change, and many of the stories might be exactly the same ones that well-meaning people concerned about the future of our country are quietly discussing today.

Most remarkably, there were even a couple of columns about the troubled relationship between the earliest Zionist settlers in Palestine and the surrounding native Palestinians, and deep complaints that under Jewish pressure the media often totally misreported or hid some of the outrages suffered by the latter group.

With the volumes long out of copyright, I have added the set to my collection of HTML Books, and those so interested may read the text and decide for themselves. As mentioned, the overwhelming majority of The International Jew seems a rather bland recitation of complaints about Jewish misbehavior. But there is one major exception, which has a very different impact upon our modern mind, namely that the writer took very seriously The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Apparently, the Protocols first came to light during the last decade of the 19th century, and the British Museum stored a copy in , but it attracted relatively little attention at the time. However, all this changed after the Bolshevik Revolution and toppling of many other long-standing governments at the end of the First World War led many people to seek a common cause behind so many enormous political upheavals.

From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols struck me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control.

Admittedly, there were many shrewd insights into politics or psychology, notably the enormous power of the media and the benefits of advancing political front-men who were deeply compromised or incompetent and hence easily controllable. But nothing else really jumped out at me.

Post navigation

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Following the revolution and the Second Congress of Soviets, Lenin’s new government, the SPC, faced the overwhelming task of governing a country in chaos. Communication was poor, and large chunks of the country, including the Ukraine, were still occupied by foreign armies.

Privacy FAQs

And, since the world revolution never did take place, it was the resources from the capitalist west that were badly needed to assist Russian reconstruction. So, the adoption of NEP coincided with an Anglo-Russian trade treaty.

About Our Ads

And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed Revolution in Russia, it seems perfectly possible that the $20 million figure mentioned by his grandson refers to the total invested over the years supporting all the different Russian revolutionary movements and leaders, which together finally culminated in the establishment of Bolshevik Russia. The other major instrument of Bolshevik power was the secret police, known by the Russian acronym Cheka (for Extraordinary Commission to Combat Counterrevolution and Sabotage).

Cookie Info

The Russian revolution actually included two separate revolutions, both in First, the February Revolution grew out of food riots in the city of Petrograd, now St. Petersburg. When the armed forces were called out to quell the uprising, many of the soldiers defected, forcing Czar Nicholas to abdicate and dissolving the imperial government. Mar 14,  · Russian Revolution and its aftermath. Posted on March 14, by tarbaby. The Jewish Destruction of the Russian Empire. From National Vanguard. This summary of Jewish operations in the Russian Empire is horrifying and entirely consistent with other sources. It makes Adolf’s efforts in the Nazi period look fairly amateurish.