Category: Europe

In the months following the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, the new government faced an immediate and pressing challenge, that being how to survive. Russia remained at war, its economy was collapsing and opposition to Bolshevik rule was growing rapidly across the former Russian Empire. For Vladimir Lenin, the priority was clear. The war had to end. Without peace, the new regime would not last. Negotiations began with Germany, with Leon Trotsky, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, playing a central role. The terms offered were severe. Russia would lose vast territories in Eastern Europe, land that contained significant industry, agriculture, and population. Many within the Bolshevik leadership saw this as unacceptable.

Trotsky attempted a compromise, declaring a policy of “neither war nor peace,” wherein Russia would withdraw from the fighting but refuse to sign a treaty. The strategy failed. German forces resumed their advance, meeting little resistance and pushing deeper into Russian territory. Faced with the possibility of total collapse, Lenin insisted that the terms be accepted. In March 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Russia exited the war, but at a heavy cost. Large areas of land were ceded, and the decision proved deeply unpopular. For many, it confirmed fears that the new government was willing to sacrifice the country to maintain power.

At the same time, opposition to Bolshevik rule was hardening into armed resistance. Across the former empire, a wide range of groups, such as monarchists, liberals, moderate socialists, and regional separatists, began to organise against the new regime. These forces would come to be known collectively as the White movement. What united them was opposition to the Bolsheviks. Beyond that, they shared little. Some wanted to restore the monarchy, others to establish a democratic republic, and still others fought primarily for regional independence. This lack of unity would prove to be one of their greatest weaknesses.

The Bolsheviks, by contrast, moved quickly to consolidate control. Their forces, known as the Red Army, were reorganised under the leadership of Trotsky as People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs. Drawing on former Tsarist officers, strict discipline, and control of key transport networks, Trotsky transformed what had been a loose collection of militias into a more effective fighting force. Geography also favoured the Bolsheviks. They held the central regions of Russia, including major cities such as Moscow, which became the new capital in 1918, and Petrograd. This gave them control over industry, railways, and communication lines, allowing them to move troops more efficiently than their opponents, who were scattered across distant fronts.

As the civil war intensified, the Bolsheviks also turned to more extreme measures to maintain control. Policies later known as “War Communism” were introduced, including the forced requisition of grain from peasants to feed the army and cities. At the same time, a campaign of political repression, often referred to as the Red Terror, targeted suspected enemies of the regime. Amid this growing conflict, the fate of the former Tsar became a matter of increasing concern.

Nicholas II and his family were being held under guard in the city of Yekaterinburg, at the Ipatiev House. As anti-Bolshevik forces advanced in the region, there were fears that they might capture the Romanovs and use them as a symbol to rally support. In July 1918, the decision was made to eliminate that possibility. During the night of July 16–17, Nicholas, his family, and several loyal attendants were taken to a basement room under the pretext of relocation. There, they were executed by Bolshevik guards. The killings were carried out quickly but chaotically, and the bodies were later disposed of in secret. The exact chain of command remains debated, but the event marked a definitive end to any realistic restoration of the monarchy.

The conflict soon expanded beyond Russia’s borders. Several Allied powers, including the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, sent limited forces to support anti-Bolshevik elements. Their aim was partly to reopen the Eastern Front against Germany and partly to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas. However, this intervention was fragmented and ultimately insufficient to turn the tide. By 1919 and 1920, the civil war reached its most intense phase. White forces launched major offensives from multiple directions, but their lack of coordination and conflicting goals undermined their efforts. The Red Army, operating from a central position and benefiting from unified leadership, was able to defeat these advances one by one.

By 1921, organised resistance had largely collapsed. The Bolsheviks emerged victorious, though at an enormous cost. The country had been devastated by years of war, famine, and economic breakdown. In 1922, the Bolsheviks formally established a new state: the Soviet Union. The revolution that had begun with the collapse of Tsarist rule had now culminated in the creation of a new political system, one that would endure for much of the 20th century. Yet the victory in the civil war also shaped the nature of that system. The centralised power, reliance on force, and suppression of opposition that had developed during the conflict did not disappear with peace. Instead, they became defining features of the new state that had emerged from the ruins of the Russian Empire.

Despite the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in early 1917, the problems that had brought down the monarchy did not disappear. The Russian Empire remained locked in the World War I, the economy was still collapsing, and food shortages continued to plague the cities. What had become increasingly clear was that the crisis ran deeper than the Tsar himself. Russia’s uneven industrialisation lagged behind much of Western Europe, its political system remained rigid and unresponsive, and its vast population had little faith that the state could meet their needs. The war had simply exposed these weaknesses. Many Russians no longer saw the old system as merely flawed, but as incapable of surviving in the modern world.

In the months that followed the February Revolution, power rested uneasily between two rival institutions in Petrograd. On one side stood the Provisional Government, formed by members of the State Duma. It aimed to guide Russia toward a democratic future, continuing the war alongside its allies while preparing elections for a new political system. Figures such as Alexander Kerensky believed that Russia could become a modern republic, similar to those developing elsewhere in Europe. On the other side was the Petrograd Soviet, representing workers and soldiers. Dominated by socialist parties such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, it held real influence on the streets and within the army. This uneasy arrangement, often described as “dual power,” left authority divided and uncertain. The Provisional Government could issue orders, but the Soviet could decide whether those orders were followed.

Into this unstable situation returned Vladimir Lenin. With the assistance of Germany, which hoped to weaken Russia’s war effort, Lenin travelled from exile in Switzerland to Petrograd in April 1917. His arrival marked a decisive shift. While many socialists were willing to cooperate with the Provisional Government, Lenin rejected it outright. Drawing on the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Lenin argued that the existing system, based on private ownership, profit, and inequality, could not be reformed and had to be replaced. In its place, he envisioned a society in which workers would collectively control industry and resources, eliminating the divide between rich and poor and reorganising society around need rather than profit. To many, this was a radical and uncertain vision, but to workers facing hunger, and soldiers facing endless war, it was a powerful promise.

[There should be no] support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear. [This government is] a government of capitalists, [and] should cease to be an imperialist government.

Lenin’s writings about the Government in his April Theses

Lenin’s slogans were simple: “Peace, Land, and Bread,” and “All power to the soviets.” In contrast to the cautious reforms of the Provisional Government, they offered immediate solutions to the crises people were living through. Meanwhile, the government struggled to maintain control. It introduced reforms, expanding civil liberties, removing old restrictions, and dismantling the Tsarist secret police, but these changes did little to address the most urgent problems. Most importantly, it chose to continue fighting in the war. In the summer of 1917, Alexander Kerensky, now Minister of War, launched a major military campaign known as the Kerensky Offensive. The aim was to restore morale and prove that Russia could still fight effectively. Instead, the offensive collapsed within days. Soldiers deserted in large numbers, discipline broke down, and the army’s confidence was shattered. The failure deepened the sense that the government was incapable of solving the country’s problems.

By July, unrest in Petrograd erupted into armed demonstrations. Workers and soldiers took to the streets, calling for power to be handed to the soviets. The uprising was chaotic and lacked clear leadership, and although the Bolshevik Party had encouraged such demands, they were not fully prepared to take power. The government responded with force, restoring order and arresting Bolshevik leaders. Lenin fled into hiding, accused of being a German agent. For a brief moment, it seemed as though the Provisional Government had regained control. But its position remained fragile.

In August, a new crisis emerged when General Lavr Kornilov, the army’s commander-in-chief, moved troops toward Petrograd. Whether this was an attempted coup or a miscommunication remains debated, but it was widely seen as a threat to the revolution itself. Faced with this danger, Kerensky turned to the very groups he had recently suppressed. Bolsheviks were released from prison, and workers were armed to defend the capital. Under the leadership of figures such as Leon Trotsky, they organised resistance, disrupted railway lines, and persuaded many of Kornilov’s troops to abandon their advance. The crisis collapsed without major fighting.

The outcome was transformative. The Bolsheviks, once seen as extremists, now appeared as defenders of the revolution. Their influence grew rapidly, particularly within the Petrograd Soviet, where they gained a majority. At the same time, the Provisional Government was left weakened, increasingly isolated, and unable to command either the army or the streets. By the autumn of 1917, the balance of power had shifted. Lenin, now returned from hiding, argued that the moment for a second revolution had arrived. Unlike the spontaneous uprising that had overthrown the Tsar, this would be carefully organised and directed.

In early November (late October in the Russian calendar), Bolshevik forces moved across Petrograd, seizing key points in the city. Bridges, railway stations, and communication centres were taken with little resistance. The operation was swift and largely bloodless, reflecting the extent to which the Provisional Government had already lost control. Attention soon turned to the Winter Palace, where members of the government remained. On the night of November 7th, Bolshevik forces entered the building and arrested those inside. Alexander Kerensky had already fled the city. The Provisional Government had fallen.

In the aftermath, Lenin and the Bolsheviks moved quickly to consolidate power. They declared that authority now rested with the soviets and issued decrees promising peace and land reform. Yet their position was far from secure. When elections were held for a national assembly, the Bolsheviks failed to win a majority. Rather than accept this result, they dissolved the assembly and sidelined rival parties. What had begun as a revolution promising power to the people was rapidly becoming more centralised. Opposition was suppressed, and a new political order began to take shape, one dominated by a single party. Later in 1918, Lenin survived an assassination attempt by Fanny Kaplan, an event that intensified repression by the new regime. The Bolsheviks expanded their security apparatus and moved decisively against perceived enemies. The events of 1917 did not end with the seizure of power in Petrograd. Instead, they marked the beginning of a far longer and more violent struggle over Russia’s future. What had begun with the collapse of Tsarist rule had led, within the space of a single year, to the rise of a radically different system, one built not on monarchy or liberal reform, but on revolutionary ideals that would shape the course of the 20th century.

By the beginning of 1917, the Russian Empire was no longer simply under strain, it was beginning to break. Years of involvement in the World War I had taken a devastating toll. Millions of soldiers had been killed, wounded, or captured, and those still fighting often lacked even the most basic equipment. Back home, the war effort placed enormous pressure on an already fragile economy. Food supplies struggled to reach the cities, prices rose sharply, and long queues for bread became a daily reality in Petrograd. Much of the blame fell upon Tsar Nicholas II. His decision in 1915 to take personal command of the army had tied him directly to Russia’s failures at the front, while political authority in the capital had been left in the hands of Tsarina Alexandra. Her reliance on the controversial mystic Grigori Rasputin only deepened the sense that the government was out of touch and increasingly unstable.

By the winter of 1916–17, confidence in the monarchy had eroded to a dangerous degree. The crisis finally broke in early March. On the 8th of March 1917, known in Russia at the time as February 23rd, thousands of women workers took to the streets of Petrograd. They marched not for ideology, but for bread. Years of shortages had pushed them to the limit, and what began as a protest over food quickly gathered momentum. The following day, more workers joined them. Factories began to close as strikes spread across the city, and within days the crowds had grown into the tens of thousands.

At first, the demands were simple, that being food and relief from rationing, but they rapidly escalated. Cries for an end to the war were soon joined by calls for political change, and then, increasingly, for the removal of the Tsar himself. What had begun as a protest was becoming a mass uprising against the entire system. As the crowds swelled, the authorities responded in the only way they knew how. Troops were ordered onto the streets to restore order. In previous crises, this had been enough. This time, it was not. Some soldiers did fire on the demonstrators, and casualties mounted, but others hesitated. Many had come from the same backgrounds as the protesters, and after years of war, hunger, and exhaustion, their willingness to enforce the Tsar’s authority was fading.

Within days, that hesitation turned into open defiance. Soldiers began to refuse orders. Then they began to mutiny. Weapons were handed out to the crowds, and entire regiments abandoned their officers to join the protests. The balance of power in Petrograd shifted almost overnight. Without the support of the army, the Tsar’s government had no real means of control. As order in the capital collapsed, attention turned to the State Duma. For years, it had existed in a limited and often frustrated role, repeatedly dismissed by the Tsar whenever it challenged his authority.

Now, faced with the breakdown of the state, its members refused to stand aside. Instead, they formed a provisional committee, stepping into the vacuum of power that was opening in the capital. At the same time, workers and soldiers began organising themselves once more, reviving the Petrograd Soviet. This body, representing the interests of those on the streets, quickly became a powerful force in its own right. Two centres of authority now existed side by side, one rooted in the old political system, the other emerging from the revolution itself. Neither fully controlled the situation, but together they marked the end of the Tsar’s monopoly on power.

Far from the capital, Nicholas attempted to return to Petrograd, but events were already moving beyond his control. His train was halted before it could reach the city, and messages from generals and political leaders made the situation clear. The army could no longer be relied upon. The government had effectively collapsed. There was no force left willing or able to defend his rule. Faced with this reality, Nicholas had little choice. On March 15th, 1917, he agreed to abdicate the throne, bringing an end to more than three centuries of rule by the House of Romanov. The empire he had inherited no longer existed in any meaningful sense. Power had slipped away not through a single decisive blow, but through a rapid and total loss of authority.

In the aftermath, a new government was formed from members of the Duma, presenting itself as a temporary authority until elections could be held. It promised reform, freedom, and a new political future for Russia. However, even as it took power, it faced a fundamental problem. The conditions that had brought down the Tsar, the war, economic collapse, and popular unrest, remained unresolved. The February Revolution had succeeded in ending autocratic rule, but it had not stabilised the country. Instead, it created a fragile and uncertain system, in which authority was divided and the future unclear. Within months, that instability would lead to a second, more decisive revolution, one that would reshape Russia, and the world, entirely.

Many Russians had grown disillusioned with the Tsarist government due to political and economic strife throughout the 1900s and 1910s, but the outbreak of the World War I initially brought a wave of patriotism. A defeat at the hands of Germany was widely feared because it could expose the weakness of the regime and potentially lead to its collapse. As part of the war effort, even the capital, Saint Petersburg, was renamed Petrograd in 1914 to sound less German.

Not everyone supported the war. Vladimir Lenin, a communist revolutionary living in exile, condemned it as an imperialist conflict between rival powers. He argued that workers should not fight for their rulers, but instead turn the war into a revolution against them, a position that was highly controversial at the time.

On the battlefield, Russia struggled. Poor leadership, weak logistics, and outdated equipment led to a series of defeats. In 1915, Tsar Nicholas II made a critical decision: he took personal command of the army. While intended to boost morale, this move had serious consequences. It tied the Tsar directly to Russia’s military failures and left the government in Petrograd under the authority of his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna. This is where one of the most controversial figures in Russian history comes into play: Grigori Rasputin.

Rasputin was not a “wizard” in the literal sense, nor simply a madman. He was a Siberian peasant and self-proclaimed holy man who had gained a reputation as a spiritual healer. His rise to influence came through the royal family’s private crisis: the Tsarevich, Alexei, suffered from haemophilia, a life-threatening condition that caused uncontrolled bleeding. On several occasions, Rasputin appeared to ease the boy’s suffering, possibly by calming him, advising doctors to stop certain treatments, or through sheer coincidence. To the Tsarina Alexandra, however, this seemed like a miracle. She came to believe that Rasputin was sent by God to protect her son and, by extension, the monarchy itself. Because of this, Alexandra trusted Rasputin deeply and began to rely on his advice, even in political matters.

While there is little evidence that Rasputin directly controlled government policy, his influence over the Tsarina, combined with her influence over the absent Tsar, created the perception that he was effectively running the country. This perception proved disastrous. Rasputin’s behaviour, which included heavy drinking and alleged affairs, scandalised the aristocracy and damaged the reputation of the monarchy. Even more damaging was the fact that Alexandra was German-born during a war against Germany, leading to rumours that she, and by extension Rasputin, were undermining Russia from within.

By late 1916, a group of nobles had decided that Rasputin had to be removed. Among them were Felix Yusupov and Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, both closely connected to the royal family. On the night of December 30th, 1916 (December 17th in the old Russian calendar), they lured Rasputin to Yusupov’s palace in Petrograd. What happened next is partly known and partly myth.

According to Yusupov’s later account, Rasputin was offered cakes and wine supposedly laced with cyanide, yet appeared unaffected. However, historians widely doubt this version, as the poison may never have been used or may have been ineffective. What is more certain is that Rasputin was eventually shot. When he did not immediately die, he was shot again, likely multiple times, and finally killed. His body was then taken and thrown into the Neva River. Later reports claimed that water was found in his lungs, suggesting he may have still been alive when thrown into the river, but this remains disputed. Much of the dramatic story of his death, involving poison, survival, and near-supernatural endurance, comes from unreliable or exaggerated accounts, which helped fuel the legend of Rasputin as an almost indestructible figure.

When the conspiracy was uncovered, the punishments were relatively mild. Yusupov was exiled to his family estate, while Dmitri Pavlovich was sent away to serve in Persia (modern-day Iran). The leniency reflected both their noble status and the widespread belief among the elite that Rasputin’s removal had been necessary. However, Rasputin’s death came too late to save the monarchy. By this point, the damage to the Tsarist regime’s reputation was already severe. The association of the royal family with such a controversial figure had eroded public trust and contributed to the growing sense that the government was incompetent, corrupt, and out of touch.