First of all, let's get out in the open exactly how I see this in its simplest terms: Russia was vulnerable. They weren't getting what they needed from their government, so they were willing to try something new. Lenin was "something new." He used that to his advantage to get in with the people, to an extent, then took it all the way with "strong-armed tactics," which did NOT coincide with the wants and/or needs of the people.
The first big, obvious thing for the people was the propaganda. Lenin used the things people most wanted to take them over to his side, such as "No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses." This quote especially underlined Lenin's ability to turn the things people wanted against them, by turning the idea of political freedom into something silly and unworthy of the people's attention. The April Theses, though, of course, allowed for quite a few of the same techniques in gaining support. Lenin gained a lot of his power through pushing down the other contenders, to the point where he should have been the obvious choice for the people. In the Theses, Lenin proclaimed that the Soviets should have power in most areas, such as the National Bank and land distribution (4). The Soviets represented the majority of Russia's population (wasn't it something like ninety percent?), and therefore made a fair go-to group for Lenin's focus (2). By focusing on a well-liked group, Lenin gained some support, but to me that didn't seem like enough.
So, yes, at first, it seemed like the Bolshevik Revolution was going to represent the people. Then Lenin started getting more forceful with things like the Checka and concentration camps, both to assure his ability to take power, and to maintain that power. The Checka did quite a bit to threaten any opposition to Lenin--ditto to the concentration camps (3). First, the Checka (secret police if you don't read) helped Lenin kind of beat the opposition out of the people (3). Not only would the Checka have created a fearfulness to speak up against Lenin (who was in the Checka, after all? You don't know. That, everyone, is why it's called a "secret," and that makes people extremely nervous), but I would assume that it would also cause a lot of distrust between the people. If you think of it that way, it seems like the Checka probably divided the people, to an extent. And, while I'm not usually one for cliché, it does seem like there is power in numbers. Divide the people, and maybe you'll have a better chance at overpowering them. At that point, it would be comparable to fighting five separated fingers, rather than a fist. The concentration camps, on the other hand, were at one point blatantly used to gain control of experienced tsarist officers, in hopes of advancing the development of the Red Army (3). This increase of power across several different groups allowed for Lenin and the Bolsheviks to take power. The Red Terror commenced, in which Lenin ordered that those without papers--and those who were causing agitation of Lenin's rule--be executed (3). Lenin continued to send opposing forces to permanent concentration camps, which continued to grow in numbers (3). A draft, too, was established for the Red Army, which Lenin brought to a thriving stance of five million by 1920 (3). With an army larger than any opposing Russian army, Lenin had no issue maintaining his control, for the time being. Obviously, given the violence and forcefulness of Lenin's actions, this revolution was not in the best interests of the people--rather, it was a takeover based on the fear of the people, and their greediness for change. While Russia was ripe for a new form of government, Lenin more so filled the need for change, rather than the legitimate needs of the Russians.
The end. :D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bravo Katie! I like! You showed a lot of evidence that showed how Lenin was changing the gov't and, you're right, the people were looking for this. They were vulnerable and in need of guidance. And I agree with the fact that his changes were not in the best interest of the people: Red Army, concentration camps, etc. But, I must disagree with the one part of your thesis: that he was doing it merely to bring about change, and nothing more. It may have been partly his selfish ambition that brought it on, but I think another part of his need for change was that he really wanted Russia to be a better society. He worked really hard to get into power, so why would he get all the way up there just to screw it up for himself? I think that he believed that his "utopia" would come true and Russia would become the model society. His concentration camps were meant for people to work harder, but we know that this is not what the result was. I believe that, while you are correct in saying that he did bring about strong-armed tactics and may have had selfish endeavors, he did have good intentions in his heart. But the hardships that he put Russia's people through was probably not the best way to go about doing it. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the fact that Russia was ready for a change. It seems like whoever rose to power first with ideas for change would have taken control of Russia, just like Lenin. I also like how you mentioned that the Cheka seemed to divide up the people. I've never thought about it that way. Lenin was very wise to use that to his advantage. By dividing up the people and instigating mistrust throughout Russia, no one was brave enough to ban together to over take him. I partially agree Jeannine though when she says he had good intentions. I think in the beginning of his campaign Lenin attempted to bring about benefitial change to Russia. But it seems as he rose in power and gained enough support, he forgot about the needs of the people and became too concerned with his new found authority. His good intentions for Russia were overpowered in his glory as leader.
ReplyDelete