Roy Medvedev Analysis

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’.

In the 1915s the Western countries had advanced technologies, a better economy and were managed successfully. However, Russia was trying something new, Communism. Lenin believed that Communism would make the country better. Shortly after his death, the man of steal, otherwise known as Stalin took control. He claimed to have the same ambitions; create a strong army, build up the industrial strength in a socialist society (Kreis, 2012). Despite their similar goals the actions they took to achieve them were completely different; Lenin is known to be on of the greatest leaders of Russia and Stalin the worst.

Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin were both Bolsheviks looking to make a communist state in Russia. They both had ideals and methods that brought them to where they got to and what they had achieved. While Lenin was more of a democratic follower, and allowed inter-party discussions, he was also a great theorist of socialism. He was also a communist who focused on the temporary capitalist development of Russia. As for Stalin, he was an opportunist politician, and was also a communist mostly just for his personal benefits and gains. He had and followed socialist policies and didn’t have the best personality and attitude, he was quite rude and disgraceful. These two leaders were mainly shaped into who they were due to their past, by comparing them, it will show if their pasts affected their ideology and methods as how different it was, also seeing how with the similar aims, how with their different attitudes and personality, they were able to

To what extent should Lenin be blamed for Stalin’s rise to power? Lenin’s role as the leader of the Soviet Union, as well as his untimely death set up favourable conditions for Stalin’s rise to power. However, through the consideration of Stalin’s role as General Secretary, the ambiguous nature of Lenin’s Testament, the controversy of the New Economic Policy (NEP) as well as Lenin’s legacy that was open to exploitation, it is evident that it was Stalin’s political skill and shrewdness that secured his position of power. Lenin was not blameless in creating a bureaucratic state in which a dictator could emerge, but it was Stalin who ultimately ensured that the dictator was him.

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

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

Vladimir Lenin played a significant role in the replacement of the monarchical Russian Empire with the ‘people-governed’ Soviet Union. Driven to act by the desperate situation present in Russia under the rule of Czar Nicholas II, he fought for the victory of the Marxist ideals. Despite being opposed and even exiled, Lenin managed to rise to the head of the Bolshevik party and secure his position as the head of the government. He used his power to attempt to organize, modernize, and reform the Soviet Union. His policies were necessary for the Soviet Union to regain strength and to return to the world map as a formidable power.

Without Lenin the Communist party may not have taken over Russia and history may have been very different and very likely more complacent. Lenin among others helped to shape the 20th century and what followed. He was a major part of history despite the idealistic long-term intentions of Lenin. Therefore, understanding Lenin is essential, for understanding historic processes and the role of political leaders in them. His ideology and his political conduct were driven by his political theories which he tried to pitch to the people and the Russian intelligence in particular. Lenin theorized that if he could not rule with the people’s love and approval he would persuade them to accept his rule through fear. A Real-politician in his willingness

Compare and contrast the ideologies and the political and economic practice of Lenin and Stalin.

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 Revolution did not meet its goals in that it was supposed to not be similar to the Tzar, yet Lenin found himself in an extremely similar position. “‘What enviable blindness…what propertied classes when they’ve long been abolished by the sense of previous decrees?’”(Pasternak 453). Lenin came to have total power, with no one

Leon Trotsky was a man to be reckoned with. Trotsky was a Marxist revolutionary who played a leading role in the 1905 Revolution, in the eventual Communist Revolution of October 1917, and in the Russian Civil War. Without Trotsky’s impact in the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks would have been defeated. His own beliefs on Marxism combined with his intellect made Trotsky a target and influential leader in the Soviets. From his studies on Marxism, he created Trotskyism, a Marxist ideology based on the theory of permanent revolution. Also, his organization-building skills and revolutionary military ideas made him a great military leader. However, Leon Trotsky was also prone to arrogance, fatal over-confidence, dismissiveness and sarcasm, qualities that contributed to his demise. His downfall was caused by Joseph Stalin as well. Joseph Stalin set out to destroy the old party leadership and take total control. Leon Trotsky was one of the most influential Russian leaders, because of his political and military leadership and revolutionary theories.

“History will not forgive Revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today, while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything” (Vladimir Lenin. Call to Power). Lenin was a persistent Russian ruler who wished to instill his communist views in Russian society at all costs. He was influential in motivating his followers to rise up and overthrow Russia’s weak government which lead to the reformation of Russia’s weak economy. Although Lenin faced opposing forces from the West, he was able to institute a number of reforms which boosted Russia’s broken economy and led to the transformation of Russia from a war-struck country into an economically stable power, prior to his death.

Vladimir Lenin, who became the leader of the Bolshevik in the time of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) in 1903, claimed to be a "traditional" Marxist. People such as historians debated Lenin was not an orthodox Marxist but a type of revisionist. However, he did not make any major alterations to Marx 's ideas but instead decided to add his own to fit to benefit him and his country with modern times and he was the key defender of Marx when his theories were attacked by revisionists such as Bernstein, Lenin defended Marx 's work due to his respect of his theories. The theories revolving around Lenin changed over time due to the increase in resources available. The original accounts attack Lenin, accusing him of

There were many different equally important reasons why Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to hold on to their power. For Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, winning political power was relatively easy, compared with retaining it. They had many different objects to overcome, such as; Russia was in chaos, politically and economically, and normal government had broken down in large areas, yet despite all these problems Lenin was able to consolidate his power – and create the world’s first communist state.