You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Seizing power in October 1917 proved far easier than holding it. Between 1918 and 1924 the Bolsheviks faced civil war, foreign intervention, economic collapse and dissent from within their own revolutionary camp — and in meeting those challenges they forged the institutions and methods that would define the Soviet state for the rest of its existence: the secret police, one-party rule, censorship, terror and centralised economic control. Then, in 1921, having won the war but nearly lost the peace, Lenin executed a startling reversal — the New Economic Policy (NEP) — that reintroduced markets and private trade into the world's first socialist state. By his death in January 1924 Lenin had bequeathed to his heirs both a functioning dictatorship and an unresolved argument about the direction of the Soviet economy.
For a breadth study, these years are foundational to every one of the course's long threads. The nature of government hardens from revolutionary improvisation into a one-party dictatorship. Control and terror are born institutionally with the Cheka and the Red Terror — the direct ancestors of every later Soviet security organ. The economy lurches from the desperate command system of War Communism to the mixed economy of the NEP, opening a debate about markets versus planning that will recur under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. And society is remade by civil war, famine and the retreat and revival of the 1920s. The organising question is whether the dictatorial, coercive character of the Soviet state was forced on the Bolsheviks by the circumstances of civil war or flowed from their ideology — a question that shapes the entire interpretation of the Soviet experience and that you will carry with you all the way to 1991.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1E (Route E): "Russia, 1917–91: from Lenin to Yeltsin" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays (Sections A and B) and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations (Section C). Within our teaching sequence it develops the nature of government and control threads opened in Lesson 1 and introduces the economy thread that runs the length of the course; the NEP is the first great episode in the recurring Soviet argument between market concession and central command.
Because Paper 1 is a breadth paper, the examiner is looking for command of change over the whole period and for judgements about the scale and permanence of change, not for narrow narrative. Keep asking how far each measure altered the nature of communist rule and how far it anticipated later Soviet practice. (For the exact assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
The Bolsheviks moved at once to build a new apparatus of rule that fused revolutionary improvisation with the coercive logic of a party determined to keep power.
| Institution | Detail |
|---|---|
| Sovnarkom | The Council of People's Commissars, the new government under Lenin as chairman; initially included Left SRs as junior partners until they quit over Brest-Litovsk in 1918 |
| Cheka (December 1917) | The political police under Felix Dzerzhinsky, tasked with "combating counter-revolution and sabotage"; it conducted arrests and executions without judicial oversight and became the prototype of the OGPU, NKVD and KGB |
| Constituent Assembly | Dissolved by armed force after a single day (5 January 1918) when it refused to ratify Bolshevik decrees, having returned an SR majority |
| Press controls | Opposition newspapers were closed within days of the seizure |
The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly is one of the most revealing acts of the whole period. There was no civil-war emergency in January 1918 to compel it; the closure of the only freely elected body in Russian history looks, therefore, like a deliberate ideological choice to subordinate parliamentary democracy to the party's claim to embody the proletariat. Lenin justified it by arguing that the soviets represented a "higher" form of democracy than a "bourgeois" parliament. Orlando Figes describes the dissolution as the point at which the Bolsheviks openly chose dictatorship over the democracy they had promised, and it is pivotal evidence in the "ideology versus circumstance" debate examined below.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) demonstrated the same ruthless pragmatism. Lenin insisted on making peace with Germany at almost any price, arguing that the survival of the revolution depended on extricating Russia from the war. The terms were extraordinarily harsh: Russia surrendered Poland, Finland, the Baltic provinces, Ukraine and parts of the Caucasus — roughly a third of European Russia's population (some 62 million people), a large share of its agriculture and over half of its industry — together with a heavy indemnity. The treaty bitterly divided the leadership: Bukharin and the Left Communists wanted a "revolutionary war", Trotsky favoured the ambiguous formula of "neither war nor peace", and Lenin narrowly carried the Central Committee by threatening to resign.
The significance of the episode is threefold, and worth drawing out because it reveals so much about the emerging regime. First, it kept the promise of peace on which October had partly rested, buying the "breathing space" Lenin judged essential to the revolution's survival. Second, it was a gamble on the imminence of world revolution: Lenin bet that the German Empire would soon collapse and the treaty become a dead letter — a bet that, remarkably, paid off when Germany was defeated in November 1918 and the Soviet government promptly annulled the treaty. Third, the manner of the decision — Lenin forcing a deeply unpopular line through a divided Central Committee — reinforced the lesson of October: the party would do what its leader judged necessary, the dissenters notwithstanding. The departure of the Left SRs in protest removed the last non-Bolshevik element from the government, a decisive further step toward the one-party state that defines the nature of government thread for the rest of the period.
The Civil War was the crucible in which the Soviet system was forged. It pitted the Reds (the Bolsheviks, defending the revolution) against the Whites (a fractured coalition of monarchists, liberals, moderate socialists, Cossacks and nationalists under generals such as Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich and Wrangel), the Greens (peasant bands, notably Makhno's anarchists in Ukraine), and the half-hearted foreign intervention of British, French, American and Japanese contingents.
Trotsky's creation of the Red Army was one of the most remarkable achievements of the period. He imposed universal conscription, building a force that reached some five million by 1920; he recruited around 50,000 former Tsarist officers ("military specialists") under the supervision of political commissars; he instilled brutal discipline; and he rallied the front from his famous armoured train. Why the Reds won can be set out directly, because breadth essays reward this analytical framing:
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Geography | The Reds held the populous, industrial heartland around Moscow and Petrograd with the main railway network, fighting on interior lines — able to shift forces by rail to meet each threat faster than the scattered Whites could coordinate |
| Unity of command | A single command structure and a clear ideology, against a White coalition united only by anti-Bolshevism and forever quarrelling over monarchy, republic or military rule |
| White weaknesses | Geographically dispersed around the periphery, tainted by association with the old regime and foreign backers, and brutal to civilians and peasants |
| The land question | Peasants disliked requisitioning but feared a White victory would restore the landlords; faced with that choice, most reluctantly preferred the Reds |
| Failed intervention | Allied forces were small, war-weary and lacked support at home; their main effect was to hand the Reds a propaganda gift as defenders of Russia against foreign imperialism |
| Ruthlessness | War Communism and the Red Terror mobilised every resource and crushed dissent |
The deepest analytical point is that geography and unity were force-multipliers: White weakness gave the Reds their opportunity, but it was Bolshevik organisation, geography and ruthlessness that seized it. None of this made Red victory automatic — in 1919 the regime's survival genuinely hung in the balance as Denikin drove north and Yudenich approached Petrograd — but once the immediate crises were survived, the structural advantages told.
War Communism (1918–1921) was the harsh economic system of the Civil War years, combining desperate improvisation with ideological zeal.
| Policy | Detail |
|---|---|
| Grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka) | Armed detachments seized "surplus" grain from the peasants to feed the cities and the Red Army; resistance was met with violence |
| Nationalisation | All large-scale and eventually most small-scale industry was brought under centralised state direction |
| Abolition of money | Hyperinflation and ideological hostility to the market drove attempts to replace trade with direct allocation and rationing |
| Labour discipline | Workers were subjected to militarised discipline; Trotsky even advocated "labour armies" |
| Class-based rationing | Food was distributed by class, with workers favoured over "former people" (nobles, bourgeoisie, clergy) |
Its consequences were catastrophic. Industrial output fell to roughly a fifth of 1913 levels; the cities were depopulated as hungry workers fled to the countryside, hollowing out the Bolsheviks' own social base; grain seizures provoked widespread peasant risings; and by 1921 the combination of war, requisitioning and drought produced a famine in the Volga region that killed millions, relieved only in part by the American Relief Administration. Historians debate whether War Communism was driven primarily by ideology (an attempt to leap straight to a moneyless communist economy — a reading some Bolsheviks such as Bukharin encouraged at the time) or by pragmatism (a desperate emergency response to feed the army). Evan Mawdsley suggests both elements were present — the decisive evidence being that the most extreme measures came late and the policy was reversed the moment the emergency passed, which points to a strong pragmatic core, even as the readiness to abolish the market shows the ideology was never far beneath the surface. This is the first great instalment of the economy thread, and the debate it opens — how far Soviet economic policy was principled design and how far improvised necessity — recurs at every later turning point, from collectivisation to Gorbachev's perestroika.
The Red Terror was the coercive complement to War Communism. The Cheka was proclaimed to be waging terror openly after the assassination of the Petrograd Cheka chief Uritsky and the wounding of Lenin by the SR Fanny Kaplan in August 1918. "Class enemies" — former nobles, bourgeois, priests and officers — were arrested, taken as hostages and executed, often without trial; the deposed Romanov family was shot at Yekaterinburg on the night of 16–17 July 1918; and the first forced-labour camps for political opponents were established. Estimates of those killed vary widely and are genuinely contested, commonly cited in the range of tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand during the Civil War. Orlando Figes argues that the Red Terror was not merely a reaction to the White threat but expressed a deep current in Bolshevik ideology — the conviction that whole classes of "enemies" could legitimately be destroyed to build the new order. This is the birth of the control and terror thread that will run, through the Great Terror, to the more restrained but still pervasive policing of the Brezhnev years.
By early 1921 the regime faced an existential crisis that came, most woundingly, from within its own base. The Kronstadt Rebellion of March 1921 was a mutiny by the sailors of the Kronstadt naval base — men whom Trotsky had once hailed as "the pride and glory of the revolution" — who rose against the regime they had helped to install. Their demands were revolutionary, not counter-revolutionary: freely elected soviets by secret ballot, freedom of speech and press for workers and the left socialist parties, the release of socialist political prisoners, and an end to grain requisitioning. That the demands came from the sailors who had made October gave them a unique moral force. The rising was crushed by Red Army troops under Tukhachevsky who stormed the base across the frozen Gulf of Finland at heavy cost; hundreds were executed and thousands imprisoned.
Kronstadt, coming on top of the massive Tambov peasant rising (1920–21) and the famine, proved that War Communism had alienated even the regime's most loyal supporters. Lenin called it "the flash that lit up reality more than anything else." The result, at the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921, was a characteristic Bolshevik pairing: relaxation in the economy (the NEP) coupled with a tightening of political discipline (the ban on factions within the party). Economic concession and political control advanced together — a pattern that recurs throughout the Soviet century.
The New Economic Policy was a dramatic retreat from War Communism, which Lenin characterised as taking "one step back in order to take two steps forward."
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.