Lenin said twice in his speech that to not act immediately against the provisionary Kerensky government would be "fatal."
Do the happenings on the front at war and at home (give some examples) convince us that this is true? What do you believe would have happened to Russia if the Bolsheviks did not act when they did?
Lenin's speech and and convincing oratory skills definitely works to rally the people of Russia so that they agree take action. However, I do not quite agree to the extent of this situation. I do think that if the Bolsheviks did not act so swiftly, Russia would have been fighting a much longer war due to the fact that the article described it solely as a war to "please the allies and the capitalists". But were these propanganda-like claims just crafted by the Bolsheviks in order to rally support?
ReplyDeleteWars by nature are rather time sensitive, anything could happen so it is often better to act quickly so that it does not allow time for the circumstances to change. Perhaps the situation was not technically as severe as Lenin made it sound but it was true enough for the claims to not sound ludicrous and it worked in his favor to gather support.
ReplyDeleteLenin's speech obviously over exaggerated the urgency of the situation in order to arouse a sense of excitement and inspire people to action. I agree with Nicki that if the Bolsheviks did not act quickly Russia would have found itself in a much more drawn out war. If people weren't fully invested in the war because of the Bolsheviks, it would have toiled on for longer.
ReplyDeleteI think Lenin's purpose of exaggeration was to cause a revolutionary mindset of the people and to become powerful. The best way to persuade people and gain supporters was to spark some kind of emotion in them. If the Bolsheviks didn't act the way they did, Russia would have been in a much deeper hole. I guess Lenin's mindset for urgency was "better safe than sorry" or "the sooner the better".
ReplyDeleteI am not fully convinced that Lenin's claim is true. Of course some negative things would result from a slower response against the Kerensky government, but to say it would be "fatal" is not only vague, but potentially exaggerated. Lenin, more specifically states that the problems they were faced with could not be solved by the government itself, but "exclusively by the peoples, by the masses, by the struggle of the armed people." Just as with anything, it's better late than never; even if the response was not immediate, I think the Bolsheviks would struggle to redeem themselves, but it would not be "fatal" and they'd eventually rebound.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, i personally stay in neutral ground on this one, because if the circumstances is authentically fatal really depends on the way you want to phrase it. Is is fatal to the Russian as a country, soldiers and peasants who are suffering from the coldness, and the brutalized war, or to those revolutionaries? I would say part of Lenin's provoking aggressive speech are very true based on facts like the severe poverty and irritability of the trenches, the intense sense of ubiquitous universal resentment toward the tottering,dysfunctional government which was not able to solve the interior crisis while was fighting a war to please the world of capitalism. It is hard to blame Lenin stated those in a way that some how the mood of the mass was bordering on ecstasy since it is very true that "History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today, while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything"
ReplyDeletethe article depicts an absolutely abysmal situation for Russia, almost everything that could go wrong has. "Russian were demoralized...the army, poorly trained, incompetently lead... suffered staggering losses; every where soldiers were deserting...food shortages and low wages drove workers into desperation...on march 9th when 200,000 workers shouting 'down with autocracy!'...after some bloodshed, military soldier refused to open fire on civilians in revolt." The list goes on and on. I think the immediate action of Lenin against the pro-visionary Kerensky government proved to avoid an otherwise fatal conclusion the the soviet union.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important during war time to act quickly and without hesitation. Otherwise, the opponent could gain a advantage. This is why it was important for the Bolsheviks to act because otherwise they may have been less decisive.
ReplyDeleteWell of course the goal of Lenin and the bolsheviks was to gain power. Bringin the people to start a revolution worked once: It made the reform of government possible. The thing was that even though the tsar was gone, the provisional government was led by the Duma, which probably still represented imperialistic opinions.And the problem was, that one couldn't agree about what to do about the war. The people wanted piece and didn't get it, so Lenin and the bolsheviks had an easy time instigating the people another time.
ReplyDeleteI think that if something were to not happen, then russia would fall into a civil war between the socialists and the provisionary government. from the beginning of the readings, you get the sense that the soldiers were lacking confidence in the orders of the officers because they were part of the government and not their own world of the working class. there were even cases of soldiers abandoning their posts because they did not agree with the leadership and what had the government uneasy was that most of the soldiers were doing this. So the enforcers were not able to enforce what the government wanted them to, quite the opposite. the people would most likely oppose the governments orders. also all the people who seemed to fall in love with Lenin as he made those speechs about how the russian people needed to act in order to protect their rights and the preserve the state.
ReplyDeleteIf something didn't happen Russia would've fallen into a state of chaos because the Duma still represented the imperial view of the Czar which the commoners really didn't like. Lenin's speeches convinced the people that his way was a better less violent way than that of the past. His speeches did make a good case for revolutionary action and spurred the people into action. This was vital as it allowed his revolution to go on quickly
ReplyDeleteLike what happen here and what happens all through out history when dealing with war is that you can't put things off. Waiting until the last minute could like what he said, fatal. It could easily cause you the war. You never know what the other side is thinking. They could be planning to attack all the while you are waiting, trying to get things straight and they will catch you off guard. If the Bolsheviks didnt act as they did, they could have been much worse off.
ReplyDeleteLenin was very smart to use the idea of fatal because it put fear in people. Without fear, these ideas that the Bolsheviks believe in wouldn't be accepted. Fear is the root of all power, and every revolution in history has been sparked by fear and carried on through fear and the implementation of fear. Lenin sparked fear in soldiers and citizens in order to get his message across and gather a sufficient amount of support to carry out his revolt.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lenin was using this terminology for personal motives, without necessarily believing it 100%. Lenin needed the people to quickly support him in taking over the government, as it was crucial to act quickly on his part, not necessarily for the entire country of Russia. It is uncertain what would have become of Russia, had there been no action from the Bolsheviks. The people would have had more time to decide as a people who they want as their leader, and what kind of society they want to live in. They were swept away by the quick action of the Bolsheviks, and many may have supported him without even thinking the decision through.
ReplyDelete