You're allowed to discuss both the February and October revolutions?

i read a really good/old biography of lenin a few years back...

really interesting stuff regarding the bolshevik/menshevik split, the famine of 1917 and reasons the russian army refused to fight (and hence allowed the germany army to come in and take grain from ukraine, to use in their war in the west which they went on to fight with more troops and more food)

The internal struggles and the effect on russian national self-worth of the lose to japan in 1905... really great book, i learned a lot that wasn't covered in history class.

Alexander Kerensky is a really interesting figure. It's too easy to focus on Lenin & Trotsky here.

You could also look at Reed's Ten days that shook the World.

Since this is a diplomacy site write about either the diplomacy between the Kerensky government and the Western Allies to keep Russia in the war or the diplomacy between Germany and Lenin that led to spiriting him into St. Petersburg.

10 days is worthless as a historical text. It should not even be read. It's full of fairy tales, mostly done to promote Trotsky and diminish the achievements of the Central Committee for whatever reason.

I think what should be written is a clarification of the historical record, especially the role the Bolshevik Party and the Bolshevik Central Committee played in orchestrating the October Revolution. It should be emphasized as to who held the line when times were tough, and didn't just jump on the bandwagon when victory seemed imminent.

Do you also have to discuss historiography? If so, that will take up a lot of room. You could also look at the British/American taskforce and their support for the Whites and War Communism.

Put, just curious.... Are you Russia or Eastern European?

No, I'm American. My ethnic heritage is mostly Hungarian and English.

Interesting. Thank You.

Hmmm... I like a few of the suggestions so far, but remember, I'm limited to 1917 (of which both February and October are parts) so the Red vs. White thing is off the table. If I could talk about that I'd already have decided to write about Trotsky organizing the Red Army. As of now, Trotsky's still on the table, Kerensky and the accompanying offensive is now on there as well.

Thanks for the input, keep it up, I'd like a plethora of ideas in case one of my top ones gets vetoed for some reason.

how is his genetic history(or ethnicity) of interest when talking about his memetic history?

hmm... i suppose ethnic background is also a measure of cultural exposure, and hence a real mix of genetics and memetics... that IS interesting...

You could talk about the importance and uniqueness of dual power in building a socialist revolution.

You could talk about the legendary April Theses, and how that changed the course of everything in 1917.

@ Putin - If I did the April These I'd either a) not have enough, as writing 12 pages about a 5-page document is not my string suit or b) have to expand and write about Lenin, which half of my class is doing. As they're all older and better writers than me, I'd rather choose a subject where I won't be compared to them.

You could write, that the other socialists in europe havn`t expected the revoltion in russia: they thought it will happen in Germany or GB, but not in Russia, because there weren`t so much workers.

The size of the document bears no relation to what can be said about it, especially since the Theses relate to revolutionary strategy. If that were the case, we wouldn't have libraries written about the 7,000 word constitution.

You could write about the differences between the attitude of the SRs and Mensheviks towards the Provisional Government (and general revolutionary strategy) and that of the Bolsheviks. You needn't focus on individuals, just talk about ideas and how they failed/succeeded.

@ Putin - Let me rephrase: I personally am not good at writing a cra[load about a short work. I need to be working off scores of pages to be able to write a dozen. Just a personal quirk. Also, like that second idea.

@fufo - Bit too broad in scope as it's specific to neither Russia nor 1917.

Good ideas so far. Some others:

--The genius of the Bolsheviks at sloganeering ("Peace, Land and Bread" is brilliant at encapsulating the hopes of many peasants)

--Leadership structure of Bolsheviks vs. Mensheviks

--A paper on the SRs (Socialist-Revolutionary Party) -- a much larger group than the Bolsheviks -- and their role in 1917.

--If everyone is doing Lenin, take a look at Julius Martov, the leader of the Mensheviks.

Generally in academic writing, the more narrowly/tightly your topic is defined the easier the paper is to write. For example, Iulii Martov on the war or the role of Mensheviks in the PG would be a great topic.

By 1917 Martov had lost most of his influence among the Mensheviks - most of whom were committed to 'revolutionary defense' or continuing the war vs the Central Powers. Martov was opposed to such a policy.

A more interesting character is Irakli Tsereteli.

I would also endorse a paper on Esers or on their loose associate Alexander Kerensky.

I'd sure be interested in an analysis of what the Okhrana was upto in 1917 and why it failed so spectacularly.

you should underline that the revolutions of '17 were pretty much paceable with very little blood spilled, compared (if you want) with what's happening nowadays in Egypt.