How Important Were the Intelligentsia for the Shaping of the Revolutions That Took Place in Russia in 1917

The Russian Revolution of 1917 centres around two primary events: the February Revolution and the October Revolution. The February Revolution, which removed Tsar Nicholas II from power was during a time when the tsar was away from the capital visiting troops on the World War I front, Establishing a Provisional government to rule Russia.The October Revolution (also called the Bolshevik Revolution) overturned the interim provisional government and established the Soviet Union by storming the winter palace.

The October Revolution was a much more deliberate event, orchestrated by a small group of people. The Bolsheviks, who led this coup, prepared their coup in only six months.The contravousy However is Whether the revolutions developed spontaneously out of a series of increasingly violent demonstrations and riots making the revolution a what Marxist historians would call 'peoples revolution' , a revolution completely planned by the Bolshevik party and other Intelligentsia meaning they were very important in the shaping (a view that Historian Richard Pipes Believes in strongly) or Whether the revolution was Due to the demonstrations by the people which were then taken advantage of by the Bolsheviks offering a sort of shade of Grey for both of the Prominent interpretations.The a popular interpretation of who caused and shaped the revolution is that the Intelligentsia were not very important for the first revolution In 1917.

However it would not be true to describe the protests as purely a ‘workers revolt’ because “it bore the character of a general uprising of the people” according to Balk, a contemporary Russian Historian. The majority of the people involved in the revolt were more likely to be spectators who would cheer mutinous soldiers. But it would be fair to say that the workers played a “leading role in the demonstrations” and were especially active in the violent aspects of the uprising.In general however, the protest took the form of a peasant riot, as acts of violence from the crowds became commonplace.

To transform a mass-demonstration into a revolution required more than just workers protesting in the streets; it required a loss of authority for the government in the city of Petrograd. This occurred as a result of the mutiny of troops from the Petrograd garrison in response to a massacre “in Znamenskii Square, a popular gathering place for political rallies, where troops of the Pavlovskii Guard Regiment fired upon a crowd that failed to disperse.About forty civilians were killed in the massacre which enraged members of the Petrograd garrison into mutiny as it was felt their “mothers and sisters were being shot” by the police and the Cossacks. But even though there had been a major power transfer to the workers, a revolution was hardly inevitable as the mutineers were described as a “leaderless rabble, who when threatened, instantly panicked and ran for cover.

” It was inaction from the Tsar that transformed a minor rebellion into a revolution. The revolt also needed organisation if it was to be successful.Unfortunately for the political parties that had most to gain from the revolt, many of their leaders were in exile. Most of the socialist parties had no expectation of a revolution, as Lenin had predicted in January that “we older men perhaps will not live to see the coming revolution. ” Even Sergei Mstislavsky, a Social Revolutionary leader, admitted “the revolution found us, the party members, in our sleep. ” So there was relatively little political involvement in the early stages of the February revolution, especially from socialist parties.

The lack of organisation was characterised by political parties having to telephone each other in order to find out what was happening on the streets. Because of this complete disorganisation of the socialist political parties it would be very premature to describe the February 1917 revolution as a ‘political revolution’. There was also very little confidence from the political parties that the protests had any political nature at all. The Bolshevik leader in Petrograd, Schliapnikov, felt that “once the crowd got their bread they would be content and disperse. ”In conclusion to this Interpretation the February revolution began as a general uprising of the people, of which the workers were the most important and most active part.

The sympathy and eventual mutiny of peasant soldiers led to power being taken from the hands of the Tsar, and transferring to the Soviet and the Duma. The political involvement of socialist parties has been consistently overestimated, and political involvement of any sort was only evident later in the revolt. Therefore it would be premature, and potentially a falsehood, to describe the February revolution as a ‘political revolution’.A series of bad judgements by the Tsar, underestimating the extent of the revolution, as well as the impact of the war, limited his ability to suppress the revolution.

When his attempts to restore order in Petrograd failed, he was advised to abdicate, and did so on March 3rd 1917, ending over three hundred years of Romanov rule in Russia. This However There are clear interpretations that the October revolution was organised by the Intelligentsia ,in this case the Bolsheviks. The October Revolution (also obviously called the Bolshevik Revolution) overturned the interim provisional government and established the Soviet Union.The October Revolution was a much more deliberate event, orchestrated by a small group of people. The Bolsheviks, who led this coup, prepared their coup in only six months. They were generally viewed as an extremist group and had very little popular support when they began serious efforts in April 1917.

By October, the Bolsheviks’ popular base was much larger; though still a minority within the country as a whole, they had built up a majority of support within Petrograd and other urban centres.This is obvious and it cannot be denied that the Bolsheviks were behind the October revolution but the real argument begins when it is suggested by people such as Historian Richard Pipes that Both the February and October Revolution were organised by an intelligentsia of some Form for their own good. Richard Pipes was born in Cieszyn, Poland to an assimilated Jewish family . His father was a businessman.

By Pipes’ own account, during his childhood and youth, he never thought about the Soviet Union; the major cultural influences on him were Polish and German cultures.The Pipes family fled occupied Poland in October 1939 and arrived in the United States in July 1940, after seven months passing through Fascist Italy. Pipes became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1943. Criticism of Pipes’ interpretation of the events of 1917 has come mostly from the "revisionist" Soviet historians, who, under the influence of the French "Annales" school, since the 1970 s have tended to centre their interpretation of the Russian Revolution on social movements from below in preference to parties and their leaders and interpreted political movements as responding to pressures from below rather them directing them.Pipes views were Clashing often with Marxist Historians and their views. The Bolshevik Revolution followed and capitalized on the February Revolution of the same year.

The October Revolution in Petrograd overthrew the Russian Provisional Government and gave the power to the local soviets dominated by Bolsheviks. As the revolution was not universally recognized outside of Petrograd there followed the struggles of the Russian Civil War (1917–1922) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.Citations And evidence From Richard pipes needed to make points and explain points made. In conclusion both and the Traditional view represented by historian Richard pipes Marxists view have their merits and downfalls from this it’s easy to extrapolate and reach the point at which both arguments seem to agree with one another.As controversial as this sounds, the fact that the revolutions developed spontaneously out of a series of increasingly violent demonstrations and riots making the revolution a what Marxist historians would call 'peoples revolution' during February of 1917 was Not Directed until it became Influenced by the people of the intelligentsia (Bolsheviks), who directly shaped the October Revolution that led to the creation of the soviet state and the Russian Civil war.Both Historical Interpretations are correct but only to a certain extent and so a mixture of the two, outlining the Original ‘peoples uprising’ in February gave the Intelligentsia a good ground on which to begin shaping a second revolution in October 1917, is a better way of showing how Important the Intelligentsia were in the shaping of the revolutions that took place in Russia in 1917.