Christopher Read puts forward the view that Lenin, although important, was not necessary for the revolution; "Being the focus of a movement is not the same as being its main creator. Even if the focus had not been there, the movement would have continued to exist"[2]. Steve Phillips on the other hand suggests that "By October 1917 the Bolsheviks were in a position to succeed in seizing power from the provisional government although by this time the Provisional Government wielded little power of its own"3 Phillips looks towards a compromise that many historians support, however Philip's fails to acknowledge the fact that the provisional government lost much of its support and power through the actions of the Bolsheviks, most significantly the Kornilov affair and the Lenin's persuasion of the soviet to support the Bolshevik seizure of power. .
Once Lenin had seized power, a new threat loomed, consolidating his newly gained power. Just after the revolution Lenin immediately began organising similar take-overs across Russia, by the end of October only a handful of regions remained loyal to the provisional government. The main threat to Lenin's new empire came in the form of the white movement, a movement from within, a movement from abroad, but in all cases a civil war. Without Lenin's decisive leadership the Bolshevik party would not have been able to cling to power during 1920 and 1921. The Kronstadt mutiny is an example Christopher Read uses to justify the lengths that Lenin was willing to go to, to protect the revolution and the newly established communist state. "The Fate of the Kronstadt mutiny, in which protest against communist political monopoly was paramount, shows Lenin's determination to preserve communist political power beyond any shadow of doubt"[4]. The Kronstadt sailors were hardened veterans of the Revolution and supported the Bolsheviks seizure of power.
