Was the Provisional Government Doomed from the Beginning? a Russian Revolution
History Dissertation
Was the Provisional Government Doomed from the Beginning? word count: 3999
Josh Blake
Candidate No. 031276977
Contents
• Introduction P 3
• Chapter 1: Nature of the Provisional Government and Structuralist opinions. P 4 – 6
• Chapter 2: Structuralist response P 7 – 8
• Chapter 3: Intentionalist response P 9 – 12
• Conclusion P 13
• Bibliography P 14
• Annotated Bibliography P 15 - 16
Was the Provisional Government doomed from the beginning?
After the February revolution on 1917 which saw the abdication of the Tsar, Russia was in turmoil. It had gone (in a matter of days) from being one of the most repressed countries in the world to being totally free with nobody in any real position of power or authority, and this was a massive change for the population of Russia. As a result of this confusion two bodies were set up to temporarily control Russia until a constituent Assembly could be elected. These two bodies were the Provisional government, (made up of leading Liberal parties, and Kadets), and the Petrograd Soviets (made up of workers, soldiers, socialist revolutionaries, and had both Menshevik and Bolshevik members.) However this reign did not last long as in October of the same year the Bolsheviks seized the Tauride Palace overthrowing the Provisional government (PG) in the name of the Petrograd Soviet. There are many reasons to why the PG did not manage to consolidate its power; primarily there were a lot of internal problems that gave them a big disadvantage. However there were also external pressures from the peasants, workers and the war that the PG could simply not cope with. As historians have studied the question in depth different schools of thought have been established. The Structuralist School believes that the PG was doomed from the beginning, because of the problems they faced such as Dual Power, the War and
Was the Provisional Government Doomed from the Beginning? word count: 3999
Josh Blake
Candidate No. 031276977
Contents
• Introduction P 3
• Chapter 1: Nature of the Provisional Government and Structuralist opinions. P 4 – 6
• Chapter 2: Structuralist response P 7 – 8
• Chapter 3: Intentionalist response P 9 – 12
• Conclusion P 13
• Bibliography P 14
• Annotated Bibliography P 15 - 16
Was the Provisional Government doomed from the beginning?
After the February revolution on 1917 which saw the abdication of the Tsar, Russia was in turmoil. It had gone (in a matter of days) from being one of the most repressed countries in the world to being totally free with nobody in any real position of power or authority, and this was a massive change for the population of Russia. As a result of this confusion two bodies were set up to temporarily control Russia until a constituent Assembly could be elected. These two bodies were the Provisional government, (made up of leading Liberal parties, and Kadets), and the Petrograd Soviets (made up of workers, soldiers, socialist revolutionaries, and had both Menshevik and Bolshevik members.) However this reign did not last long as in October of the same year the Bolsheviks seized the Tauride Palace overthrowing the Provisional government (PG) in the name of the Petrograd Soviet. There are many reasons to why the PG did not manage to consolidate its power; primarily there were a lot of internal problems that gave them a big disadvantage. However there were also external pressures from the peasants, workers and the war that the PG could simply not cope with. As historians have studied the question in depth different schools of thought have been established. The Structuralist School believes that the PG was doomed from the beginning, because of the problems they faced such as Dual Power, the War and
Bibliography: Beryl Williams – new perspective Volume 1. Number 2. (December 1995): This article was useful as it provides some quotes and helped me understand the role of Kerensky better. [3] John Bradley, The Russian Revolution, London (1988) p56 [4] Robert Service, Stalin, a bibliography, London (2004) p129 [5] Phillip. E. Mosley www.emayzine.com/lectures/russiarev [6] Orlando Figes, A Peoples Tragedy, London (1996) [7] Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution, New York (1990) [8] Bernard Paves, A History of Russian, London (1947) p531 [11] Beryl Williams, Lenin, profiles in power , London (2000) p63 [12] Robert Darby agrees with the Structuralist School