How Far Do You Agree That Trotsky’s Leadership of the Red Army Was Responsible for the Survival of the Bolshevik Government? (30 Marks)

On the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, competition emerged between leading Bolsheviks Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin to succeed as Soviet leader. There were several reasons why Stalin, rather than Trotsky, succeeded Lenin – such as Trotsky’s ignorance; Stalin’s cunning; Trotsky’s arrogance; Stalin’s ever increasing influence and Trotsky’s relaxed attitude. In this essay I will be exploring the contribution of Stalin’s cunning, and both Trotsky’s arrogance and ignorance that resulted in Stalin’s succession and Trotsky’s fall from grace.

From the initial seizure of power in 1917 until 1924, the Bolsheviks were confronted with a series of crises that threatened their ability to control and govern in Russia. The response and resolutions to these crises included Initial Reforms, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Civil War, Red terror, War Communism and the NEP. Under the leadership of Lenin, the execution of these responses were made possible and the Bolsheviks were able to maintain and expand their power. The Civil War however was the direct consequence of the Bolshevik’s actions as they tried to maintain their grasp on power. The victory in the Civil War was extremely pivotal for the Bolshevik consolidation of power as it brought control and power but more importantly it eliminated

Over the period from 1855 to 1964, Russia saw various reforms and policies under the Tsars and the Communist leaders that had great impacts on its economy and society both positive and negative. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. However whether his policies had the greatest impact is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other ruler between the period from 1855-1964.

This essay shall address the issue of how the far the brutality of Bolshevik Regime ensured the maintaining of it’s power between the years of 1917-24. This essay shall explore topics concerning the ‘Dictatorship Of The Proletariat’, The Cheka, War Communism, The Red Terror and other potential reasons for the Bolsheviks remaining in power. This essay shall also explore the various views put forth by various Historians such as Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes.

On 24-26 October, the Bolshevik Party seized power from Kerensky’s Provisional Government. This was achieved with surprising ease. Retaining their newly acquired power, however, was to prove difficult. Nonetheless, the Bolsheviks proved successful in consolidating their power from 1917-1924, achieving this through a combination of pragmatic reforms and ruthless terror. This ultimately led the Bolsheviks far from their original goals and ideologies, and by 1924, the Soviet Union was a highly centralised one-party state.

Trotsky’s overall role in the Soviet Union is indisputable as his strategic leadership skills enabled him to play a fundamental role in the organisation and implementation of the November 1917 Bolshevik seizure of power and the Civil War of 1918-21. However, the importance of Lenin’s role must also be taken into account to achieve a more balanced portrayal, as many of Trotsky’s successes were based on Lenin’s initiatives. Although Lenin held authority over the Bolshevik’s, it

According to History.com Staff, “The provisional government had created a group of leaders from Russia’s bourgeois capitalist class. Lenin would alternatively call for a Soviet state that would be controlled directly by councils of workers, peasants, and soldiers.” (“Russian Revolution”). Both decided that the Soviets was going to be a useful instrument in the next revolution. They didn't want the Soviets to have all the power until they could control them. In the book, Rise and fall of Communism 2009, Archie Brown shows us that, “On 12 October, according to the old calendar, Trotsky took command of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet and on 25 October...the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd” (Brown 51). Insurrection was to start, but there were complications with the date set. In the book, The History of the Russian Revolution 1960, Leon Trotsky says, “At a session of the Petrograd Soviet on the 18th, Trotsky, in answer to a question raised by the enemy, declared that the Soviet had not set a date for an insurrection, in the coming days, but that if it became necessary to set one, the workers and soldiers would come out as one man” (Trotsky 162). There were forty thousand workers in the army of Petrograd.

It can be argued that Leon Trotsky’s naïve personality is what failed him in the attempt to achieve power, but through his intelligence and sturdy leadership, he shaped the Russian and International history to the way it is today. Through his main roles as ‘Commissar for Foreign Affairs’, ‘Commissar for War’ and the political position in the Politburo, Trotsky impacted society by his efforts in control and fight for power, and his aim to spread his communist ideals of ‘comintern’ (Communist

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was a Russian Marxist politician and revolutionary in the early 20th century. His contribution to Soviet Russia was immense through his practice of Marxist and Trotskyist theory for Russia and the world. His rise to prominence in the Soviet Union was characterized by his work and partnership with Lenin. Trotsky’s most significant accomplishments included his leadership of the Red Army and success in the February Revolution, which consolidated Bolshevik power. Trotsky’s ‘talent’ and ability’ was undoubted, however, it was insufficient to attain leadership of the Soviet Union. Following the death of Lenin, Lenin’s Testament confirmed Trotsky as the rightful successor, although his power struggle with Stalin resulted

Throughout his journey to power, Stalin faced several blockades and proved his leadership worthy by defeating them and coming out a stronger politician. Examples like Vladimir Lenin’s dying testament to the Communist Party, and the turmoiled years of the struggle for power in the Politburo, are all examples of which Stalin has bested his opponents. An abundance of evidence in both the life and times of Joseph Stalin, and a hundred years of speculation of the USSR, should lead for an interesting debate with multiple perspectives. Ultimately, by

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was the seizure of power by the radical Marxists led by Vladimir Lenin and was one of the pivotal moments of the 20th Century. The ramifications of the event, and the subsequent establishment of the world's first Communist regime were immediately obvious, but also had continuing repercussions for decades. This essay will argue that although Lenin and Stalin seemed to have conflicting views, in reality they shared very similar policies; Stalin just took these policies to an extreme.

Most historians agree that throughout his political career Trotsky displayed various talents and abilities. However, these skills alone were not enough to enable him to become the supreme leader of the USSR. In the context of the workings of the Bolshevik party to rise to the highest office of the politburo required certain traits and qualities as well as an ability to utilise the party machine and exploit its members-talents, traits and qualities Trotsky clearly lacked. For these reasons the statement is highly accurate because in spite of his ability, Trotsky’s failure to rise to the ‘highest office in the land’ was a consequence of his arrogance, political naivety and inability to turn success into political capital.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

The Russian Civil War raged from 1918 until the start of 1921. During this time the Bolsheviks faced massive opposition to their rule in the form of the White Armies, led by the former officers of the Tsarist state, and also from intervention by the forces of foreign countries. The Bolsheviks were surrounded, and often outnumbered by their opponents. At times, their situation seemed hopeless. Yet, by the start of 1921, the Bolsheviks had defeated their enemies and gained a complete victory. This victory can be attributed to the party’s aims, leadership, geography, and support.