Lev Davidovich Bronshtein Ideology

“spent the first part of his reign marginalizing his rival, Leon Trotsky” in the attempt of presenting himself as Lenin’s true heir; an attempt which proved successful in 1928. After outmanoeuvring his rivals, Stalin’s propaganda messages were altered to focus heavily on uniting and encouraging the people to actively participate in the radical realignment of the USSR’s industrial, economic and political positions. It was at this point that the cult of personality slowly crawled into the conventional life of the average Soviet citizen.

Had Stalin’s opposition published Lenin’s Testament during the conflict for leadership, he would never have made it to power and Russian history would be very different. However the fact remains that they failed to publish this until it was too late; Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky attempted to publish the testament in 1926 but Stalin was already too strong – he ordered the secret police to remove the illicit copies, leaving the United Opposition to appear desperate and undermined. These general errors by the Bolsheviks made Stalin’s rise to power easier, as they could have ended his political career if people had recognized his vast control and power within the party.

Soso Djugashvili, more commonly known as Joseph Stalin, ‘man of steel’, dictator of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Russia, can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent when features of Stalinism are compared to those of Tsarism and Russia ruled by Nicholas II’s autocratic regime from 1894 to 1917. A ‘Red Tsar’ is a communist leader whom follows similar principles followed under the leadership of a Tsar, that were influenced by few opinions allowing sole leadership and little opposition from others. Stalin can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent as he ruled Communist Russia as a somewhat totalitarian state and was considered a ‘God-like’ figure sent to Earth to lead the nation and its people. From Stalin’s reign of terror from 1929 to 1953 there can be similarities seen in his regime to features of Tsarism as well as differences, this is why there are alternative interpretations for Stalin being considered a ‘Red Tsar’.

Throughout historical times, the rule of Josef Stalin has been questioned due to his position as being one of the most popular and contentious leaders. Through the evaluation of his ruling within the Soviet Union, he can be seen as both a positive and negative ruler. His methods of changing the country following World War I were sudden, causing a complete change in societal ways of life in controversial ways. While his changes created one of the most powerful countries the world had ever seen at its’ time, they also caused for massive discontent within the citizens of Soviet Russia.

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.

Stalin’s unquestionable dominance over the Bolshevik party and their actions highlights the impact of Stalinism

In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed lay the foundation for Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin’s plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin’s socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war. As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought.

Leon Trotsky, originally known as Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was born November 7th in the year 1879. Born to a Jewish-Russian family of wealthy but illiterate farmers, he was sent to school in Odessa by age nine. Although he was enrolled in a German school, during his studies there the school was “Russified” during the Imperial Government’s policy of Russification. The environment of the town of Odessa contributed greatly to the development of Trotsky’s revolutionary ideas and his international outlook. Later on in his life, by 1896, he quickly became involved in revolutionary activities after moving to the harbor town of Nkdayev. As a narodnik, also known as a revolutionary populist, he was first introduced to Marxism, but disliked the core

Trotsky’s involvement in the 1917 revolution was of utmost significance to Bolshevik success. With Lenin in exile in Finland, Trotsky became the public face of Bolshevism. Trotsky’s leadership of the Soviet demonstrated his distinct skills, which became essential to the success of the revolution. His formation, recruiting, disciplining and arming of the Red Guard became a significant factor to the movement. It had amassed to over 200,000 militants by October. Additionally Trotsky’s arranging of the Soviet, placing Bolshevik delegates in power, allowed the Bolsheviks to organize the Military Revolutionary committee.

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

Richard Edward Pipes is a Polish raised American citizen with a long history of Russian publications from a western liberal-conservative lens.[footnoteRef:1] An extreme loyalist to the anti-communist movement, he has three publications relevant to this week?s discussion. He began with the historically significant publications of The Russian Revolution and A Concise History of the Russian Revolution that were followed during the revisionist period with Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution. He openly acknowledges the influence on his objectivity by living in post Russian revolution Poland in several of his publications. [1: . Http://facebook.com/alphahistory, "Historian: Richard Pipes," Russian Revolution, 2015, accessed November 08, 2016,

In her memoir Under A Cruel Star, Heda Margolius Kovaly recalls a conversation with “prewar communist intellectuals… they spoke about the profound feeling of brotherhood...the equality...the friendly acceptance” (Kovaly 59), and recounts how ten years later, the same couple confessed how what the claimed was completely untrue. To the outside, they must portray themselves as loving follower of Stalin, a “comrade”, yet on the inside, doubts and distress remained apparent. The goal of collectivization and the eradication of unemployment was not only to increase efficiency and industrialize, but also to show the “socialist facade”(Khomiakov 83) that gave the appearance that socialism works in their society and everyone was contented and proud with the state of their nation and lives. Initially, the citizens believed they were perpetuating and spreading to the world the ideal of communism and kept their faith in the government, “that was how [they] thought and acted, [they], the fanatical disciples of the all-saving ideals of communism” (Terror in the Countryside, Lev Kopelev). The Socialist revolution and its goals persuaded the people to trust Stalin at the start of the socialist era to create the “new Soviet man”, yet when they realized that the government’s claims about communism were not the reality, a sense of distrust and indignation began to

In an era littered with propaganda, censorship, and authors overwhelmed by influences on objectivity, Reed provides a western reporter’s personal eyewitness accounts of Russian events. As a non-combatant, non-Russian, and devote socialist, his publications stands alone in this category of historiography. His death in 1920 blocked any opportunity for historians to question his methods or further elucidate the workings and intensions it left a void in potential research. As history must have a beginning, an event, and an end: historiography must have a beginning. Reed must be including when discussing the concept of the beginning.

His writings provide historians with source information about the Provisional Government and the Kornilov Affair. Alexander Kerensky wrote a history that was flattering towards him where it concerned his involvement in the Provisional Government and the Kornilov Affair. This biasness tints the objectivity he purports to write as it is harsher towards General Lavr Kornilov and the Bolsheviks, and less so of the Provisional Government. Danish historian Jørgen Munck agrees Kerensky’s writings must viewed as suspect for Kerensky admitted to having to change the official text not only editorially and stylistically, but also Kerensky altered the chronological order of two unspecified instances. Leonid I. Strakhovsky, a contemporary of Kerensky’s, does not have a positive impression of Kerensky. Born in Russia and holding a doctorate in history, Strakhovsky displays pre-revolutionary values in his writing. He portrays Kerensky as a villain who not only betrayed Kornilov but the Russian people. Strakhovsky is more conservative than Kerensky and finds fault with Kerensky for the Bolsheviks coming to