Which of the following was one reason the February Revolution in Russia was less successful than the October Revolution?
Answers
There are numerous acts and events which make the two Russian revolutions during the lapse of 1917 differ, but there are some key similarities too. First of all, it is not that controversial to state that the Russian people were devastated. As in 1905, Russia was in 1917 still a mostly agriculturally dependent country, and although it had experienced unpreceded economic growth in the years leading up to 1917, it was still far behind leading European industrial powers such as Germany and Britain. The differential treetment of the royal court towards the many minorities living in Russia, amongst whom were Poles, Jews, Ukrainians etc, was still extreme, and few things had changed in that aspect although Nicholas II promised radical changes in the October Manifesto. There are nevertheless significant differences between both the causes and results of the two revolutions, and judging from those, it is fairly possible to draw conclusions on why the October revolution was more successful than the one in February. The first aspect in which the Russian society differed in during October when compared to the February one was in terms of its organization. While the latter was rather poorly organised and came suddenly, with not even a proposal for who should take over power when the Tsar abdicated, forcing a provisional government to be established, the former was highly organised and knew exaclty what to do. This is mostly thanks to the relentless efforts and outstanding organizational skills of Leon Trotsky, who by then had chosen to support Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The American historian Robert Daniels also gives a lot of credit to Trostky for the organizational success of the October revolution, which is evidenced by the fact that immediately upon the power was seized from the provisional government, the Bolsheviks had a team consisting of their very best organizers and speakers ready to take control of the country. Another difference which can be found during the two revolutions of 1917, is that the October revolution was, as stated by the British historian E.H. Carr, nothing but a coup d' etat, while the February revolution was an uprising which consisted of more than 400 000 Petrograd workers. Although Carr wrote so to speak immediately after the revolutions, his argument is still today supported by many historians. The difference in these two revolutions which could classify one as a coup and the other one as an uprising, lie in the given than the October revolution was, rather than being a "people revolution" such as the one in February, consisting only of protesters, that Lenin made it a military coup and thus forced the provisional government to resign. There are although as mentioned several aspects in which the Russian society did not differ. Besides, the war in which Russia was involved in proved devastating for the Russian society during the whole year, so it was not a decisive factor in pinpointing the exact date of a potential revolution, but it for sure increased the pressure on the Tsar and subsequently the provisional government which chose to continue Russia's involvement in it. A concrete example which may illustrate the economical implications the war brought with it is the fact that while the government had only 710 military vehicles in 1914, it had received over 30 000 until 1916, just one of the priorities which ended up causing the majority of the budget to be directed towards the country's war efforts rather than impoverished and already devastated population.