Lenin in Power

1. What was the Sovnarkom?

The Sovnarkom was the Council of People's Commissars, which was the first thing Lenin did. The council made a lot of decrees, the first being a peace treaty with Germany, it tried to hold on to power for the Bolsheviks, it gave the Tsar's and Church's land to the peasants, and the workers had control of industries and factories.

2. Why was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk bad for Russia?

The Treat of Brest-Litovsk was bad for Russia because they lost a major part of Russia's land. The land was in the western part of Russia, basically the border part of Russia and Europe including Finland. However, it was a major downfall for Russia because the land was the best land for agriculture, industries, part of railways, a large chunk of its coal mines, and about one third of its population. Westesrn Russia was a huge part of Russia because it was a major part on its economy and how it sustained the country.

3. Who were the "Whites"?

The "Whites" were the group that was opposed to the "Reds." They wanted the Tsar to come back to reign, and they had supporters inside and outside of Russia, who were opposed the Bolsheviks. The Whites weren't as well disciplined as the Reds and they didn't have good leaders, such as Trotsky to lead them. Also, they were many "White" groups all over Russia, therefore it was difficult for them to communicate and use the same campaigns, in other words they were not united. The Whites were made up of Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, supporters of the Tsar, the landlords and capitalists who lost land or money in the revolution, and the Czech Legion who were prisoners of war.

4.. Read Source 3. What evidence does it provide of Lenin's
a) political skill

It provides evidence of Lenin's political skill by making the Whites soun ferocious and immoral. He says that the Whites have threatened "millions of people" with famine, which makes a big impact on people because millions of people is a huge number, and the supporters of the Bolsheviks may also not see that they are doing the same thing but not as harshly.

b) ruthlessness

Source 3 provides evidence of Lenins ruthlessness by saying harsh and forceful words about the Whites. For example, he writes that the Whites "are sabotaging and organising strikes in order to block the government's efforts to reconstruct the state on a socialists basis." This shows that he doesn't care how they overcome the Whites, he just wants everyone to do it.

5. Use Sources 5 and 7 to describe how the Civil War affected ordinary people.

The Civil War greatly affected ordinary people, no matter what group, Reds or Whites, there was a chance of death. However, if the Reds came to your village you had a likelier chance to survive because all you had to do was obey orders to give food to the soldiers. The Whites, on the other hand, were a lot more ruthless. They would kill basically everyone in the village, they didn't give you any chances to survive pretty much. Before you even had to obey orders you had a high chance of dying, especially if you were a man. According to Source 7 if the Whites came to your village and you were a man with a population under 45 you were killed automatically. They also forced you to give up your best cattle, horses, food without pay; basically like stealing but you were there to see the entire thing if you survived this far.

6. "Most Russians saw the Bolsheviks as the lesser of two evils." With reference to Sources 5, 7, 13 and 16 explain whether or not you agree with this statement or not.

I agree with this statement because as Source 16 says the Whites executed innocent people in the hundred thousands, the Reds used propoganda to make the Whites sound really bad, and the Reds or Bolsheviks treated the peasants a lot nicer than the Whites. Source 16 says that "in Finland alone, the number of workers executed by the Whites approaches 100,000," which is a huge difference compared to the "twelve to fifty thousand"(Source 16) of the Reds. Also, the Reds were a lot less ruthless than the Whites. The Reds would shoot anyone who tried to disobey orders, as Source 5 says "If a regiment retreats against orders, the machine guns are turned on them," which just goes to show that the Reds had better control of their army. However the Whites were ruthless against the villages, according to Source 7 they would bomb the village first, then killed the Bolshevik committee, the houses of the committee members were burnt, men under the age of 45 were wipped, and then the villages were forced to give up their best cattle, horses, and crops to the soldiers with out pay. I think that is much crueler than the Reds because there's more torcher and the Reds weren't as aggressive when they came to take food, at least that's what I felt from the Sources. There is no evidence, out of these sources, indicaating that the Whites uses propaganda. Source 13 is propoganda from the Reds, saying that the Whites are really bad and you shouldn't support them if you don't want another Tsarist regime. However there is no propaganda used by the Whites showing that they weren't just aggressive and combative, that they were smart and political too.