"A leaderless, spontaneous and anonymous revolution." Is this a fair description of the Russian Revolution of March 1917?

In March 1917 long and short term problems in Tsarist Russia come to head. The effects of the first world war and widespread food shortages became too much for the Russian people. Revolution broke out.

In this essay I will investigate the claim that the March 1917 revolution was "Leaderless. Spontaneous, and Anonymous". I will attempt to prove that this claim is either right or wrong. I will do this by addressing each of the words in turn. I will use various sources to help me complete this piece of coursework.

"Leaderless"

All of the sources show that the revolution was largely leaderless, in that there was virtually no prominent leader of the revolution. Source two suggests that the Bolsheviks were not responsible as they had been severely diminished after numerous arrests in 1914 and their attempts at strikes came to little. It does suggest that their propaganda was a major factor. However, the Bolsheviks themselves were surprised by the revolution and little evidence labels them as the sole leaders of the revolution. Indeed this is backed up as Trotsky describes the uprising as ‘ a mass of women’. This mass of women, who were demanding bread were later joined by their husbands, the factory workers, as described in source five. In fact there is such a lack of leadership, it was likely the revolt would fail. However this was put out of all doubt when army soldiers joined the protest and the protests spread throughout the whole of Petrograd. In source 7 it is decried as wild, and a mob. I think there is no doubt that the revolution was Leaderless.

"Spontaneous"

Again almost every source I have chosen indicates that the revolution was spontaneous. In source two, Trotsky describes how a mass of women flocked to the Duma demanding bread. The uprising was the last straw for the people of Russia. The war had caused there to be many food shortages and, as source five describes, women were beaten for not bringing any bread home. Eventually, the working men recognised it was not the women at fault and took to the streets as well - also demanding bread. The whole revolution erupted from a small demonstration of women demanding bread. It appears that although the revolt began there, there was little thought and planning behind the actions. This is clear in source ten. The people are all caught up in the moment and are recklessly destroying burning and killing all government offices, police and "all tyrants". There seems to be no motives once the revolution starts, the whole thing merely snowballs. However having said this there are underlying factors that built up overtime. It could be argued that the revolution would not have started if the Tsar had pulled Russia out of the war. That would have meant that food could have been distributed and the women to demonstrated. There were other factors that could have led to revolt. For instance, the Tsar’s blatant disregard for his peoples needs. The Bolshevik’s are obvious contributors, their propaganda would have been a strong influence. Basically the Tsar’s ‘mis-rule’ led to the revolution. A revolution was inevitable but at that time it was unexpected. The long term effects were the reasons for revolt but when it actually happened it can be said to be spontaneous.

"Anonymous"

Before I can embark on this part of my essay, I must define what I think is meant by "Anonymous". My understanding of anonymous is that the revolution was totally impersonal. Like "Leaderless", anonymous means that no one group can be held totally responsible for the revolution.

As I have said before, the revolution was started when women went on a bread strike and more and more people joined the strike and the revolt snowballed. This is the anonymity I am talking about. No particularly outstanding individual or group in responsible for the revolution it was merely a group of ‘fed-up’ citizens who were demonstrating for what they believed in. The fact that the revolution spawned from there does not put them as front runners for the revolution, no-one was. It is clear in all the sources that not only was the revolution leaderless, but it was anonymous. The whole event described as mobs, masses, wild, and crowds. They are not described as political extremists or Bolshevik aggressors, as they were not. They were normal people, speaking out against the terrible Tsarist rule.

In conclusion I am in no doubt that the Revolution of March 1917 was Leaderless and Anonymous, the sources clearly show this. However it could be argued that it was not spontaneous because of the many previous events In my opinion the revolution can indeed be considered spontaneous as I cannot see how it could not be if I have said it is Leaderless and Anonymous. In my opinion and with reference to the sources I have chosen I conclude that the revolution was "Leaderless, Spontaneous and Anonymous".