Why did two revolutions destroy tsarism and bring the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917?
Analyse the causes and course of the February and October Revolutions of 1917
Why tsarism collapsed in February 1917 and how the Bolsheviks seized power in October, covering causes, dual power, key figures and historiography.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
What this dot point is asking
This depth study focuses tightly on the single year 1917 and its two distinct revolutions, the foundation of everything that followed in Soviet history.
By 1917 the Romanov system was already fragile. The autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II had survived the 1905 revolution only with limited reforms, and resentment simmered among peasants who wanted land, workers in the cities, and a middle class denied real political power. The First World War turned strain into collapse. Military defeats, millions of casualties, transport breakdown and food shortages discredited the regime, while Nicholas, having taken personal command of the army in 1915, was blamed for failure. The royal family was further disgraced by the influence of Rasputin over Tsarina Alexandra, murdered by nobles in December 1916.
Power then split awkwardly. The liberal Provisional Government, formed from the old Duma, claimed authority, but real influence over soldiers and workers lay with the Petrograd Soviet, which issued Soviet Order Number One. This situation of dual power left the government weak from the start. It granted civil liberties but postponed the great questions of land and a constituent assembly, and above all it made the fatal decision to continue the unpopular war.
Lenin transformed the situation. Returning from exile in April 1917, transported across Germany, he issued the April Theses demanding peace, land, bread and "all power to the Soviets", refusing cooperation with the Provisional Government. After a premature rising in the July Days failed and Lenin fled, the government under Alexander Kerensky was fatally weakened by the Kornilov affair in August, when an attempted military coup was defeated partly by armed Bolsheviks (Red Guards), greatly boosting their prestige and the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets.
The October Revolution followed. On the night of 25 October / 7 November 1917 the Military Revolutionary Committee, organised by Leon Trotsky, seized key points in Petrograd, the storming of the Winter Palace, and arrested the Provisional Government with little resistance. The Bolsheviks immediately issued the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land. When elections to the Constituent Assembly in late 1917 gave the Bolsheviks a minority, they dissolved it by force in January 1918, confirming that this was the beginning of one-party dictatorship rather than democracy.
Historians disagree sharply about 1917. The "liberal" or Western view long stressed contingency and the accidental nature of the Provisional Government's failure, presenting October as a coup by a small, well-organised minority. Soviet historiography portrayed it as an inevitable mass workers' revolution led by the party. Revisionist social historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick examined genuine popular support and pressure from below, especially among workers and soldiers radicalised by the war. For TASC essays and source work, weigh the long-term weaknesses of tsarism and the impact of war against the short-term role of Lenin and Trotsky's leadership and organisation.
The argument over whether October was a coup or a revolution is central and testable. If October was a narrow coup, then the Bolsheviks' organisation and Lenin's will were decisive, and the regime lacked broad legitimacy from the start, which the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918 seems to confirm. If it was a genuine revolution, then the Bolsheviks rode a real wave of worker and soldier radicalisation captured in their autumn majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets. A strong TASC answer does not simply assert one label; it weighs the evidence of mass support against the evidence of a small disciplined seizure and reaches its own judgement.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of TASC exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
TCE 202210 marksSource A is an extract from Lenin's April Theses of 1917, in which he demands peace, land and all power to the Soviets. With reference to its origin, purpose and content, assess the usefulness of this source for a historian investigating why the Bolsheviks gained support in 1917.Show worked answer →
A TASC source-evaluation question wants origin, purpose and content tied to a judgement about usefulness for the stated inquiry, not a summary of the extract.
Origin and purpose. Identify the source as Lenin's own programme on returning from exile in April 1917, intended to set Bolshevik strategy and rally support against the Provisional Government. Its purpose is political mobilisation, so it is a statement of aims rather than a neutral analysis.
Usefulness. Argue it is highly useful as evidence of the simple, powerful slogans (peace, land, bread, all power to the Soviets) that explain growing Bolshevik appeal among war-weary soldiers, land-hungry peasants and urban workers. It is less useful for measuring how widely these ideas were actually accepted, which needs other sources.
Make the analytical move that a programmatic source is very useful as evidence of strategy and appeal, while its reception must be tested against events such as the July Days and the autumn soviet elections.
Markers reward the origin-purpose-content link, a judgement relative to the question, and awareness that a political source reveals intent.
TCE 202320 marksWhy did the Provisional Government fail to retain power in 1917?Show worked answer →
A 20 mark extended response needs a clear thesis explaining the government's collapse through ranked causes, sustained across structured paragraphs.
Thesis. Argue that the Provisional Government failed mainly because it continued the war and delayed land reform, fatally weakening it during the period of dual power, while Bolshevik leadership exploited its mistakes.
Key causes. Explain the decision to continue the unpopular war; the failure to resolve land and the Constituent Assembly; the weakness of dual power with the Petrograd Soviet; and the Kornilov affair, which discredited Kerensky and armed the Bolsheviks.
Bolshevik role. Weigh Lenin's clear slogans and refusal to compromise and Trotsky's organisation of the October seizure.
Judgement. Conclude that the government destroyed itself through the war and indecision, creating the opening that the Bolsheviks, uniquely willing to seize it, exploited.
Markers reward a ranked, weighed explanation, precise evidence and a clear judgement.