You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
In the space of eight months in 1917 the Russian Empire experienced two revolutions of utterly different character, and out of the second the communist system that would govern the country for the next seventy-four years was born. The February Revolution swept away the three-hundred-year-old Romanov autocracy in a spontaneous, leaderless upheaval; the October Revolution brought the Bolsheviks — a disciplined, ideologically driven party led by Vladimir Lenin — to power in a planned, narrowly based seizure. For a breadth study that runs from Lenin to Yeltsin, 1917 is the foundation stone: every later development — the command economy, the one-party state, the secret police, the leader-cult, and eventually the reforms that unravelled the whole edifice under Gorbachev — descends from the answers the Bolsheviks gave, in these first months, to the question of how a self-proclaimed workers' party would actually rule.
This opening lesson reconstructs the two revolutions and the Bolsheviks' first seizure of power, and it introduces the great analytical threads that recur across the entire course: the nature of government (from autocracy to a party dictatorship claiming to embody the working class), the economy (the collapse of the war economy and the first Soviet experiments in control), society (workers, soldiers and peasants as makers and objects of revolution), and control and terror (the birth of the Cheka within weeks of October). The organising question is whether October was a genuine popular revolution or a coup by a determined minority — and, crucially for a breadth paper, what the answer reveals about the kind of state the Soviet Union would become. Because you will trace the changing nature of communist rule right through to 1991, it is worth fixing from the outset how narrow the Bolsheviks' original mandate was, and how much of the later Soviet system was implicit in the way power was first taken and held.
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 and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations. Within our own teaching sequence it opens the nature of government thread that runs the length of the course, and it establishes the control and terror thread that recurs from the Red Terror through the Great Terror to the KGB of the Brezhnev years.
Because Paper 1 is a breadth paper, examiners look for command of change over time and for judgements that range across the period rather than narrow case-study description. Keep asking how each development altered the distribution and nature of political authority in Russia. (For the precise assessment weightings and question wording, always consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than relying on any paraphrase.)
The First World War was the decisive catalyst for the fall of the Romanovs. The autocracy had survived the comparable crisis of 1905 — military defeat, economic hardship, a general strike, peasant risings and a soviet — because the army had remained loyal. By 1917 total war had achieved what 1905 had not: it destroyed that loyalty and, with it, the only instrument that could have saved the throne.
| Pressure | Detail |
|---|---|
| Military catastrophe | Defeats from Tannenberg (1914) onward, millions of casualties, and Nicholas II's fateful decision in August 1915 to take personal command of the army — tying the prestige of the throne directly to every subsequent defeat |
| Economic breakdown | Rampant inflation, a transport system buckling under the demands of war, and severe bread and fuel shortages in Petrograd during the bitter winter of 1916–17 |
| Political alienation | The Progressive Bloc in the Duma demanded a "government enjoying public confidence" and was refused; the Rasputin scandal corroded the monarchy's prestige even among monarchists |
| The garrison | The Petrograd garrison — war-weary peasant conscripts — proved unwilling, in the end, to fire on the crowds |
The revolution itself was not made by any party. It began on 23 February 1917 (all dates here Old Style unless noted; 8 March by the Western calendar) with International Women's Day strikes by women textile workers demanding bread, escalated within days into a general strike, and reached its decisive turning point on 27 February, when soldiers of the Volynsky and other guards regiments mutinied and joined the demonstrators with their weapons. On the same day the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was formed, and Duma members created a Provisional Committee. On 2 March Nicholas II abdicated — first for himself, then for his son — and his brother Grand Duke Michael declined the throne. Three centuries of Romanov rule ended in a matter of days, and the autocracy thread of Russian government reached its terminus.
The historian Rex Wade emphasises the spontaneous and popular character of February, arguing that it was driven from below by the accumulated frustrations of workers, soldiers and ordinary people rather than directed by professional revolutionaries. Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, Trotsky in New York, and the Bolshevik leadership inside Russia was taken entirely by surprise. This spontaneity matters enormously for the breadth argument, because the contrast with the meticulously planned October seizure is one of the richest comparisons the whole course offers: it frames the recurring question of whether the great turning points of Soviet history were "made" by disciplined leadership or "happened" through deeper social forces.
February left behind not a settled new order but the unstable arrangement historians call dual power (dvoevlastie): two competing centres of authority that could neither govern without each other nor govern effectively together.
| Body | Character |
|---|---|
| Provisional Government | Self-appointed and unelected, drawn from the Duma's liberal and moderate parties; initially led by Prince Lvov, later by Alexander Kerensky. It held formal authority but commanded little popular backing |
| Petrograd Soviet | Directly elected representatives of workers and soldiers, initially dominated by moderate socialists (Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries). It held real power — the loyalty of the garrison, the railways and the streets — but not formal responsibility |
The Provisional Government's early record was genuinely liberal: it granted sweeping civil liberties, abolished the death penalty, declared a political amnesty and legalised trade unions, making Russia briefly one of the freest countries in the world. But freedom did not feed the cities, end the war or give the peasants land. The government made three fatal decisions — to continue the war, to postpone land reform until an elected Constituent Assembly could decide, and to leave the food and economic crisis unresolved. Each flowed from a defensible logic (alliance obligations, the impropriety of an unelected body redistributing land), but each steadily eroded its support and handed the Bolsheviks their winning slogans of "Peace, Bread, Land" and "All Power to the Soviets".
The critical mechanism of dual power was Order No. 1, issued by the Petrograd Soviet on 1 March, which instructed soldiers to obey the Provisional Government only where its orders did not contradict the Soviet, and placed control of weapons in the hands of soldiers' committees. The historian Sheila Fitzpatrick captures the resulting instability by describing dual power as a system in which one body possessed authority without power while the other possessed power without responsibility. For the nature of government thread, the significance is profound: the liberal, democratic experiment of February — the one serious attempt at parliamentary government in the whole period — failed within eight months, and its failure became, for the Bolsheviks, the cautionary lesson that justified their later rejection of liberal democracy altogether.
The turning point of the year was the Kornilov Affair of August 1917, when the commander-in-chief General Kornilov appeared to march on Petrograd (whether in a genuine coup attempt or through a confused misunderstanding with Kerensky remains debated). Kerensky, to defend the capital, armed the Bolshevik Red Guards and released Bolshevik prisoners. The affair rehabilitated and rearmed the Bolsheviks, discredited the moderate government, and destroyed the political centre. By September the Bolsheviks had won majorities in both the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets, and Trotsky had been elected chairman of the Petrograd Soviet — the platform from which the October seizure would be launched.
By the autumn of 1917 Lenin, still in hiding in Finland after the July Days, bombarded the Bolshevik Central Committee with urgent letters insisting on an immediate armed seizure of power before the forthcoming Second Congress of Soviets and the long-delayed Constituent Assembly could provide a rival source of legitimacy. His argument was twofold: militarily the balance of forces in the capital was favourable and would not stay so; politically the party must seize power and present the country with an accomplished fact rather than seek anyone's permission.
The decision was fiercely contested within the party — a point that matters greatly for the "coup versus revolution" debate, because it shows the seizure was a deliberate choice, not an automatic reflex of the masses.
| Position | Advocates |
|---|---|
| Immediate insurrection | Lenin, who slipped back into Petrograd and forced the issue at the Central Committee meeting of 10 October, winning the vote for an armed seizure by 10 to 2 |
| Caution and opposition | Kamenev and Zinoviev, who argued the Bolsheviks should take power peacefully through the Congress of Soviets and even aired their opposition publicly in Gorky's non-party newspaper |
| Military organisation | Trotsky, chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, who organised the practical seizure through the Soviet's Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) under the cover of defending the revolution |
Trotsky's tactical genius was to cloak the insurrection in the language of soviet defence rather than party offence. When, on 24 October, Kerensky ordered the closure of Bolshevik newspapers and the raising of the Neva bridges, he handed the MRC the perfect pretext to act. Over the night of 24–25 October, Red Guards, revolutionary soldiers and sailors occupied the strategic points of the capital — telegraph and telephone exchanges, railway stations, bridges, power stations and the State Bank — against virtually no resistance. On the evening of 25 October the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets convened with a Bolshevik majority; when the moderate Mensheviks and Right SRs walked out in protest, Trotsky consigned them (in the celebrated phrase) "to the dustbin of history". In the early hours of 26 October the Winter Palace, seat of the Provisional Government, was taken with little real fighting — defended only by a few hundred cadets, Cossacks and a women's battalion, most of whom melted away. Kerensky had already fled the city to seek loyal troops. The Congress then ratified the new Bolshevik-led government, the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), and passed the first decrees.
The contrast with February is the analytical heart of the lesson. Where February was a spontaneous, mass, leaderless upheaval, October was a planned, disciplined, narrowly based seizure executed by a single party with clear leadership and military organisation. The later Soviet mythology of a heroic "storming" of the Winter Palace — crystallised in Sergei Eisenstein's 1928 film October — was precisely that: a myth constructed by a regime that needed, retrospectively, to portray a minority operation as a great popular uprising in order to legitimise itself. Recognising the gap between the prosaic reality and the epic legend is itself a key breadth skill, and a standing warning against taking later Soviet sources at face value.
The Bolsheviks moved at once to bind the population to the new order before opposition could organise. The Decree on Peace called for an immediate armistice; the Decree on Land abolished private landownership and sanctioned the peasants' seizure of the gentry's estates — in effect adopting the Socialist Revolutionaries' agrarian programme wholesale to win peasant support. These decrees delivered precisely the demands the Provisional Government had refused. Yet the limits of the Bolshevik mandate were exposed almost immediately: in the November elections to the Constituent Assembly, the SRs won the largest share of the vote (roughly two-fifths) and the Bolsheviks only about a quarter. When the Assembly met on 5 January 1918 and refused to subordinate itself to the soviets, it was dissolved by armed force after a single day. This dissolution — the closure of the only freely elected body in Russian history within ten weeks of the seizure — is a decisive piece of evidence about the character of the new state, and it opens the control thread that will run through the rest of the course.
October 1917 sits at the centre of one of the most important historiographical debates in modern history: was it a coup by a conspiratorial minority, or a genuinely popular revolution? For Section C you need to characterise these positions and weigh them — always paraphrasing, never inventing words to place in a historian's mouth.
| Historian | Interpretation (paraphrased) | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Richard Pipes (The Russian Revolution, 1990) | October was essentially a coup d'état by a small, ruthless, ideologically driven minority that seized a power vacuum; Bolshevik terror and dictatorship flowed directly from Leninist ideology, and the Constituent Assembly result proves the Bolsheviks lacked a mandate | The classic liberal, top-down reading; powerful on Bolshevik agency and intent, but critics argue it underplays the genuine social radicalism of 1917 |
| Sheila Fitzpatrick (The Russian Revolution) | October had real popular support among workers and soldiers and rode a genuine wave of radicalisation; it should be set within a wider social revolution of workers seizing factories and peasants seizing land | The influential revisionist, "history from below" reading; rich on popular agency, but its Petrograd focus can understate how un-Bolshevik much of the peasant empire remained |
| Alexander Rabinowitch (The Bolsheviks Come to Power, 1976) | The Bolsheviks succeeded because they were a genuinely mass party in Petrograd whose success rested on both popular support and organisational discipline | The most detailed study of the seizure; balances the two poles rather than choosing between them |
| Robert Service / Orlando Figes | A synthesis: October was a revolutionary coup — organised and willed by a disciplined leadership yet channelling widespread popular discontent | The consensus position; stresses that the timing and form were a party choice while the seizure rested on real, if narrow, consent |
The central axes of debate are clear. First, method versus social basis: Pipes is unanswerable on the mechanics (a few thousand armed men seizing key buildings in a single city under Trotsky's MRC), while Fitzpatrick and Rabinowitch are convincing that the seizure met so little resistance because the Bolsheviks had captured the mood of the urban workers and the garrison after Kornilov. Second, ideology versus circumstance: did the dictatorship that followed — the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the Cheka, the Red Terror — flow from Leninist doctrine (Pipes's intentionalism) or from the desperate emergency of the emerging civil war (the revisionist emphasis)? A sophisticated position recognises that the two interacted: the Bolsheviks' ideological readiness to abolish democracy shaped how they responded to genuinely difficult circumstances.
Section C presents you with extracts advancing differing interpretations and asks you to judge how convincing each is using your own contextual knowledge. The skill is not to agree or disagree in the abstract, but to test each argument's central claim against what you know. Below are two short extracts framed as representative of differing schools — they are illustrative paraphrases written for teaching, not verbatim quotations from any historian.
Extract 1 — representative of the "coup" reading (in the tradition of Pipes). The October Revolution was not a revolution at all in any meaningful popular sense but a coup d'état, meticulously planned and executed by a disciplined minority. A few thousand Red Guards, directed by Trotsky's Military Revolutionary Committee, seized the nerve-centres of the capital in a single night against negligible resistance, while the mass of the population looked on. The proof of the Bolsheviks' lack of a mandate came within weeks, when they lost the Constituent Assembly elections decisively and then dispersed the Assembly by force. What followed — terror and one-party rule — was implicit in the manner of the seizure from the first.
Extract 2 — representative of the "popular revolution" reading (in the tradition of Fitzpatrick and Rabinowitch). To dismiss October as a mere coup is to mistake the mechanics of the seizure for its meaning. The Bolsheviks took power so easily because they alone expressed the radical mood of the workers and soldiers of Petrograd after the Kornilov affair, holding genuine majorities in the soviets that had become the real organs of popular authority. The Provisional Government fell not because it was overthrown by a conspiracy but because it had already collapsed from within, having forfeited all support by continuing the war and delaying the land the peasants demanded. October was the culmination of a genuine social revolution, not its negation.
To evaluate these, deploy your own knowledge on both sides. Extract 1 is convincing on the method — the MRC, the small numbers, the near-bloodless occupation of key points, and above all the Constituent Assembly result and its dissolution, which are hard evidence of a minority prepared to rule by force. Extract 2 is convincing on the social basis — the Bolshevik majorities in the soviets, the Kornilov legacy, and the genuine popularity of the decrees on peace and land. The most convincing judgement recognises that the extracts are not simply opposed: they describe different dimensions — Extract 1 the seizure, Extract 2 its success and survival. The evidence supports a synthesis (Service's, Figes's): October was a minority coup that succeeded because it channelled a real, if geographically and socially limited, popular radicalism — and the tension between the two (power taken by a minority claiming to act for the masses) is precisely the contradiction that drove the new regime toward dictatorship. Notice that a strong Section C answer ranks the extracts with reasons and grounds every claim in specific detail (the 10–2 vote, the Assembly result, Order No. 1), rather than paraphrasing them and moving on.
Specimen question modelled on the Edexcel Paper 1 format (Section B breadth essay, AO1): How far do you agree that the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917 was a coup rather than a popular revolution?
This is an AO1-led breadth question rewarding analytical evaluation and a substantiated judgement. A strong answer interrogates the terms "coup" and "popular revolution," distinguishes the method of the seizure from its social basis, and reaches a criteria-based verdict rather than narrating the events of October in turn.
Mid-band response: The October Revolution was mostly a coup. Only a few thousand Red Guards took part, and they seized the important buildings in Petrograd in one night. The Bolsheviks then lost the Constituent Assembly elections, which shows most people did not support them, and they closed the Assembly down. However, Extract-style arguments say the Bolsheviks were popular in the soviets, and the decrees on peace and land were popular too. So it was more of a coup than a mass revolution, but it did have some support.
Examiner-style commentary: To reach the next band this response needs to stop asserting and start weighing. The knowledge is accurate but the judgement is a bland "more of one than the other" rather than a criteria-based verdict. The move that lifts it is to define what "popular" means and to separate the method of the seizure (which supports "coup") from its social basis (which supports "revolution"). The February/October contrast — spontaneous mass rising versus planned party seizure — would sharpen the analysis and is currently missing.
Stronger response: Whether October was a coup or a popular revolution depends on what "popular" means. The method was that of a coup: a few thousand Red Guards, organised by Trotsky's Military Revolutionary Committee, seized key buildings in a single city in a planned operation, and the Bolsheviks then dissolved the Constituent Assembly when they lost the election — a sharp contrast with the spontaneous mass character of February. However, the coup succeeded only because the Bolsheviks had won real majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets and expressed the radical mood of workers and soldiers after Kornilov, while the Provisional Government had collapsed from within after continuing the war and delaying land reform. On balance, October is best described as a coup that rode a genuine wave of popular radicalisation — the method was a coup, the underlying mood was revolutionary.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a clear, criteria-based argument that interrogates the key term and uses the February/October contrast — a genuine step up. To reach top-band it needs to integrate the historiography into the reasoning rather than leave it implicit, and to draw out the significance of the tension it identifies. Naming Pipes and Fitzpatrick as part of the argument, and showing how a minority seizure claiming mass legitimacy necessarily tends toward dictatorship, would complete the move.
Top-band response: The disagreement is less about the facts of October than about the criterion of legitimacy each label applies, and the most convincing reading reconciles them by distinguishing the method of the seizure from its social basis. On method, the "coup" case is unanswerable: October was a planned, narrowly based seizure, executed by a few thousand armed men under Trotsky's MRC in a single night, cloaked in soviet legitimacy but directed by the Bolshevik party — the antithesis of the spontaneous, mass, leaderless rising of February. The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly ten weeks later, after the Bolsheviks won barely a quarter of the vote, confirms that they were a minority prepared to take and keep power by force, as Pipes stresses. Yet the "popular revolution" case identifies why the coup met so little resistance and could be consolidated: the Bolsheviks had genuinely captured the mood of the urban workers and the Petrograd garrison after Kornilov, holding majorities in the key soviets, while the Provisional Government had haemorrhaged all authority. The decisive synthesis is that October was a minority coup that succeeded because it expressed a real, if socially and geographically limited, popular radicalism. The coup label therefore better describes the seizure, the revolution label its success — and the tension between them, power taken by a minority claiming to act for the masses, is precisely the contradiction that drove the regime toward the one-party dictatorship and terror that define the rest of the Soviet century. A government that has abolished free elections can sustain itself only by force, which is why the manner of October 1917 shaped the whole nature of Soviet government thereafter.
Examiner-style commentary: This response earns the top band by recognising that "coup" and "popular revolution" describe different dimensions rather than being simple opposites, sustaining that distinction throughout, and deploying Pipes and Fitzpatrick as integral to the argument. Crucially for a breadth essay, it draws the long-range significance — that a minority seizure claiming mass legitimacy tends structurally toward dictatorship — which connects October to the character of the regime across the period. The lesson for students is that a breadth essay is an argument about a proposition, tested from every angle, not a tour of the events.
The essential modern works are Orlando Figes's A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924 (1996), the great narrative stressing long-term causes and popular agency, and Richard Pipes's The Russian Revolution (1990), the powerful liberal interpretation of October as an ideologically driven coup, to be read critically. Sheila Fitzpatrick's concise The Russian Revolution (4th edn, 2017) gives the revisionist social reading, while Alexander Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks Come to Power (1976) remains the definitive study of how and why the seizure succeeded in Petrograd. Robert Service's Lenin: A Biography (2000) is authoritative on Lenin's decisive personal role. A good Section C habit is to read Pipes and Rabinowitch against each other and ask what each would count as evidence for its view — the discipline of interpretation is as much about method as about facts, and it sets up the whole approach of this course to the changing nature of the Soviet state.
This content is aligned with the Edexcel A-Level History (9HI0) specification.