Lenin at the Finland-Station (1970)
The importance of the months of February and October in the Russian Revolution of 1917 cannot be denied. With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the subsequent shifting of power to the Provisional Government occurring in the former, and the seizure of power by the Bolshevik party occurring in the latter, these months massively influenced the course of Russian history. The month of April, however, also played a momentous role during that year. This is discussed in Gregory L. Freeze’s Russia: A History, “Seventeen Moments in Russian History“, and Module Three of the Digital History Reader.
On the site “Seventeen Moments in Russian History“, the “April Crisis” is described as the period after the excitement of the February Revolution wore off in the hearts of the Russian people. According to the subject essay written by Lewis Siegelbaum on the matter, the April Crisis stemmed largely from dissatisfaction toward both the state of the economy and Russia’s continuing involvement in the first World War. This dissatisfaction proved detrimental for the Provisional Government and those leading it. Both Russian peasants and workers looked to the new government to deliver them from the economic woes they faced during the times of autocratic rule. When it did not act in their favor in a timely manner, both groups turned to resistance and vigilantism to meet their needs. This unrest was worsened when it was made clear that the leaders of the Provisional Government planned to continue the war until its end and to uphold any treaties made under the Tsar’s rule before they came to power. Siegelbaum writes of the aftermath of this revelation, saying “Mass demonstrations and clashes on the streets of Petrograd forced both Miliukov and the War Minister, Aleksandr Guchkov, to resign.” After this concession of power, Siegelbaum states that a coalition government was then tentatively formed containing socialist and non-socialist leaders from both the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. He writes, “This had two critical consequences: the lines of dual power became considerably blurred, and the two main socialist rivals of the Bolsheviks now were inextricably associated with the policies of the Provisional Government and above all, its continued prosecution of the war.” According to Siegelbaum, the April Crisis was important to the diminishing of power of the Bolshevik’s opposition on the road to the October Revolution.
Freeze also discusses the place of April 1917 in Russian history, which he refers to as “The All-Russian Crisis”. His view coincides with that of Siegelbaum. He writes, “The first coalition quickly exposed the gulf between liberalism and socialism—and the government’s inability to bridge that chasm. The conflicts in the coalition correlated directly with the declining authority of the Provisional Government (and, by contrast, to the surge in Bolshevik influence)” (281). Although these separate parties came together to rid the Tsar of power, they were ultimately unable to bridge the gaps between their ideologies. The parties in control of the Provisional Government, who had to choose between appeasing the people of Russia by backing out of the war or downplaying the notion that Russia was unstable in new hands by maintaining its involvement in the war, were effectually caught between a rock and a hard place. Their choice to continue in World War I against the wishes of the people solidified their decline and the Bolshevik’s rise to power.
Finally, the historical relevance of the April Crisis can be seen in the speech issued by Vladimir Lenin at the Finland-Station (pictured above). This speech is known as Lenin’s “April Theses”. The third point of these theses directly calls for “No support for the Provisional Government”. Instead, Lenin outlines his plan for transforming Russia into a socialist society. Siegelbaum purports that Lenin’s theses “clearly set the Bolsheviks apart from the other socialist parties” and thereby add to the overall importance of the April Crisis as an aspect of the Russian revolution.
I think you did a great job in this blog post of mentioning how the morale and attitudes of the general Russian public declined after the “honeymoon” of the revolution. You can see that decline in today’s political world all the time when a new person or group comes into power. You also did well to mention that the somewhat-stubborn Provisional Government did not do themselves many favors by not listening to the general public and instead sought after establishing their credibility which failed. It’s always pivotal that a state achieves their credibility goals, otherwise they will never have true power.
Courtney, First off I want to say that your blog design is awesome, and the name you gave it is catchy as well. This post was spot on, and really showed the importance of April for the Bolsheviks rise to power. When most people think about the revolution, most jump right to October. This did a great job of explaining the importance of April, and explaining who did what in this time. Just from the picture that you attached above, it made me want to be in the room where Lenin made this speech. Although it is certainly over-dramatized, the vibe must have still been incredible. Once again, awesome post!
The first thing that got my attention here was your picture, which is awesome. You’re assertion that the month of April was an important time in 1917 cannot be denied. I also think Lenin’s “April Theses” played a particularly definitive role in rise of the Soviet. Lenin’s promises of “peace, bread, and land” helped overcome internal divisions within the party and mobilized those who were unsure of the Soviet cause.
I think it was really great that you chose to cover the April Crisis as this is a very pivotal point in the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks yet it is easy to overlook when the events of February and October are of such importance. I mentioned in a comment last week that it isn’t so much the boiling point that is of importance but the steady build-up to that boiling point. In order to really get a grasp of why the Provisional Government loses power and the Bolsheviks rise one needs to understand all the events that led up to the revolution in October, not just the event itself, and you did a wonderful job of highlighting one of those events in this post.
This is a great post about the place of the April Theses in 1917. I think Connor’s metaphor about things boliing is a very apt description of the period between February and October. The build up is important and more than a little complex. An interesting question to consider is how others in the Bolshevik leadership responded to the April Theses.
As everyone else said, this was a wonderful post about the importance of the April Crisis in the course of the revolution. It is so easy to focus on February and October and forget what happened in between. I wrote about how continued involvement in World War I was detrimental to the Provisional Government as well, so it was interesting to see your take on it too.