This paper examines whether the Russian Revolution of 1917 was historically inevitable or whether alternative outcomes were genuinely possible. Drawing on the political, economic, and social conditions of late Imperial Russia — including rural poverty, population growth, military defeat, and cultural diversity — the paper first builds the case that revolution was a near-certain result of accumulating crises. It then systematically considers counterfactual possibilities: agrarian reform, a stronger Duma, decentralization along ethnic lines, and the absence of German-sponsored repatriation of Lenin. The analysis concludes that while dramatic change in Russia was unavoidable, the specific form it took in 1917 was shaped by contingent decisions and actions rather than destiny alone.
This paper first addresses the idea that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was inevitable, given the charged events that had occurred in and around Russia in the preceding decades, and then examines the question from the opposite angle, describing ways in which it might never have happened. Given the extreme nature of the events and the almost unavoidable temptation — in hindsight — to assume that history could only have unfolded as it did, there is a need to better understand the period from both a "what happened" and a "what could have happened" standpoint. It is also an accepted fact that understanding Russia is impossible without a clear understanding of her history, both as a Soviet state and as an imperial power. Change was inevitable — but was the Russian Revolution of 1917?
The Russian Revolution of 1917 began as almost all other revolutions do: at the intersection of political, national, and economic turmoil. "The root causes of the revolution lay in the everyday workings of Russian society, particularly its harsh and growing level of exploitation of peasants and workers and the rigid barriers erected against political change" (Read 11). It is a demonstrated historical pattern that these kinds of tumultuous circumstances are often felt very deeply in Russia, as they are in almost no other place:
"In 1905 came an astonishing event — the first Russian Revolution. It accompanied the disastrous and humiliating defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, just as emancipation of the serfs followed the Crimean War, and as the February and October Revolutions to come in 1917 were the direct result of the terrible beating Russia was taking in World War I. Foreign wars always shake Russia up." (Gunther 43)
Clearly, the Russian Revolution — or something equally extreme — was in the works inside the politically charged environment within Russia during these years (Riasanovsky 435–460). Though it is clear that the powers behind the February, and especially the October, revolutions were in many ways caught unprepared, as many of the main figures — Lenin included — were organizing in exile (Gunther 43–44).
Within the years preceding the revolution, many events shaped the future of the Russian government, including the first Russian Revolution of 1905, mentioned above. The reasons for that uprising were largely associated with a growing rural crisis linked to falling international grain prices, archaic agricultural technology, and drastic increases in the rural population that could not be supported by the available land.
"Between 1861 and 1905 the situation grew progressively worse for the peasants. The main engine-room of the crisis was rising population, which put increasing pressure on already inadequate plots. Between 1880 and the 1897 census, the population of the Empire rose from 100 million to 130 million. By the time of the 1917 revolution it had risen further to 182 million." (Read 13)
The tax burden and land reapportionment following serf emancipation continually burdened the mostly agricultural economy, and the lives of the extremely culturally diverse peasantry deteriorated rapidly (Read 12–14). The cultural diversity of the peasants also played a role, as many individuals and groups felt the burden more acutely due to their culture's political position within society (Read 12–14).
"The Russian Empire was a museum of human cultures, an anthropologist's paradise. It had the cultural variety of the British Empire all wrapped into one vast land mass which covered one-sixth of the land area of the globe and stretched through 180 degrees of longitude." (Read 12)
For the majority agricultural society, it seemed that the harder they worked, the less they gained. Upward mobility was nearly impossible under the existing conditions, and some days it must have seemed nearly impossible just to maintain the status quo. The inflexibility of the situation added profoundly to the atmosphere of extreme discontent.
After the 1905 revolution, many circumstances had changed — but not enough to avoid the complete transformation that occurred during 1917 and continued to cause turmoil well into the 1920s.
In 1914, World War I broke out in Europe. Germany attacked England, France, and Russia. As a result of a series of disastrous military defeats, Russia began to fall to pieces. A dissolute monk named Rasputin, the favorite of the Tsarina, grew to wield unparalleled influence at court, and the morals of the court disintegrated. Thousands of men deserted from the army, the domestic economy was shattered, and the people — totally fed up with the war — demanded freedom, peace, and change (Gunther 46).
The Tsarist government had, over the course of a few years, lost most of its real power through the establishment of a Duma, or parliament, which in 1914 staged an insurrection and refused to follow the Tsar's direction. "Little bloodshed occurred, and the monarchy was not forcibly wrenched off the throne; rather it fell of its own torpid weight" (Gunther 47). Though the insurrection was a partial success and the Tsar ultimately abdicated, there was still much to be done — according to both those who had achieved limited success in 1914 and those who would eventually triumph in 1917.
"German-sponsored return and Bolshevik strategy"
"Alternative paths through reform, diversity, and diplomacy"
It is without question that the Revolution of 1917 did take place. In fact, many call it the single most pivotal event of the twentieth century, yet the possibilities for a different circumstance or outcome are clearly present, as they are in every major historical event. This demonstrates that it is often the victor who writes history. The dynamics of the situation were such that the Russian Revolution of 1917 played itself out in precisely the way it did — revisionist interpretations notwithstanding — and the establishment of the first socialist state began. It is equally certain that Russia would have changed dramatically with or without the establishment of Soviet Russia. Yet this is the way the events unfolded, shaped as much by contingency and human agency as by any predetermined historical force.
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.