How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? In October 1917 the Bolshevik’s took control of Russia after staging a revolution. However they faced many dangers/threats while in power from the years 1917-1924 such as a civil war and the economic crisis it caused. The leadership of the red army by Trotsky is a very important reason that the Bolsheviks got into power as his red army implanted the revolution but also to the survival of the Bolsheviks as the red army overcame the Bolsheviks biggest threat of the civil war. However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
On the other hand, it can be argued that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War was just as, or even more important in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, as was the image of the Bolsheviks as being patriotic heroes fighting against Tsarist leaders and foreign invaders. Obviously, it was the October Revolution which brought the Bolshevik Party into power, giving them control of Russia. It can therefore be said that, had this not occurred, then it is incredibly unlikely that the Bolsheviks would ever have come into power. The Revolution was, of course, Lenin’s major goal (though in the end it was organised by Trotsky) for his party, and it was through his leadership and staunch dedication to the fall of the Provisional Government that the Bolsheviks eventually seized power in October 1917. Had it not been for Lenin, the Bolsheviks would never have taken power in the first place, as free elections were to be held in November 1917, with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs) being the most popular at the time.
How far do you agree that the most important result of the oppression was the strengthening of Stalin’s political dominance? The Great Terror had a profound effect upon the Communist Party and on Soviet society as a whole and it was most famous aspect of Stalin’s Russia. This terror grew from his paranoia and desire to be the absolute leader, and was enforced by the NKVD as well as his public show-trials. It developed into a terrifying system of labour camps (or gulags) and purges. Stalin’s oppression had many results including, but not limited to, the strengthening of his political dominance.
Whilst in exile the Bolshevik party struggled and did not push for an uprising with the same vigour. Lenin also did not care for the temporary leader allowing his members to join the P.G, but with his return he started planning an armed uprising once again and his personal presence in Petrograd, along with his reputation, allowed him to sway the opinion of other Bolsheviks that were not too confident to join the uprising, and to put an end to the Bolshevik support for the P.G. What this highlights is Lenin's ability to force others to see things his way, and without him the other leaders may not have chosen this course and the whole aim of the party may have been unsuccessful. However Lenin was not the only reason for the success of the party as there were other factors such as the war with the Austro-German allies. As Russia was having economical pressure extended unto it by France and Briton to continue its war effort the P.G was put in a paradoxical situation where to survive it had to continue fighting, but it could not survive if it stayed in the war.
Explain and assess the reasons why the reds won the civil war (12) The first reason was that the whites were spread out all over Russia. This worked to the reds advantage as the whites could not support each other so the reds could just fight a white army one at a time with overwhelming superiority. The reds were also in a central position in Russia so they could control all of the transport links such as rail stations. This meant that the reds could quickly move troops and supplies very quickly to areas where they were needed. Another advantage the reds had was they had the support of the peasants.
It could be argued, however, that he wasn’t the favourite to take control. In 1922, in Lenin's testament it is quoted as him saying that Stalin had ‘unlimited authority concentrated in his hands’ and that comrades ‘should think about a way of removing Stalin from that post.’ The post that Lenin is referring to is his role as the General Secretary of the Communist party. The favourite perhaps was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky had a far greater reputation and proved through his leadership of the Red Army that he had the potential to be a brilliant leader. Other potential rivals included Kamenev and Zinoviev as they had also been prominent figures in securing the revolution in 1917.
By controlling the membership within the party congress Stalin also had the power to expel pro-Trotsky supporters, and therefore establish a system which gained him huge amounts of support to outvote the other contenders. By having such a system in his favour Stalin was able to manipulate those in the government to see forth with his ideas, suggestions and plans. Trotsky, one of Stalin's main rivals encompassed authority as Head of the Army and consequently had limited power within the party. Stalin's control of appointments and the membership made him a useful ally as other contenders wanted him on their side as he could deliver votes in the
Tsar Nicholas II has faced a revolution in 1905 due to social discontent, however Tsarist rule has managed to survive because of several factors such as disunity of opponents, loyalty of troops and Tsar's concessions. Disunity of opponents against Tsar has played a significant role in the survival of Tsarist rule during 1905 revolution because it was easy for the government to divide the opposing groups and crush them one by one. The lack of coordination between the opposing groups meant that the strike involving 2.7 million strikers was not as effective as it could be when working together and being able to prevent transportation of troops. Therefore the strikes without leaders of Social Revolutionaries or Social Democrats, created chaos which added worry for the government but wasn't regarded as a major threat to the government as the groups did not fight effectively. This meant that the lack of leadership of the groups reduced effectiveness of the opponents as a whole enabling the government to be able to crush them one by one and so therefore survive.
As a result of the Russian revolution, communist Germans also had support from Soviet Russia and Vladimir Lenin, the lead Russian communist revolutionary. In retrospect, the extreme left posed a much lesser commination to the Weimar Republic than it was thought at the time. One of the main reasons for this is the bad co-ordination of the extreme left: they were incapable of mounting a unified attack on Weimar democracy and after 1919 when Liebknecht and Luxemburg were assassinated by the Friekorps, their leadership and representation suffered greatly as their successors often had disagreements on tactics which lead to a lack of strategy and internal divisions. Repression was another factor that meant the extreme lefts opposition was not serious.
‘While Lenin traditionally receives all the praise, Trotsky was actually the primary reason why there was a Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and thus deserves the most credit.’ Leon Trotsky, along with Vladimir Lenin played a fundamental role in the 1917 Russian Revolution. There have been many attempts to distort and even to deny the role of Trotsky, especially on the part of the official tyranny historians. Right wing historians such as Richard Pipes see Trotsky as just another demanding leader much the same as Lenin and Stalin. However, the left wing view of Trotsky consists of those who still accept the Stalinist version of events. Isaac Deutscher is one historian who has the contrasting views of the right wing historian, Pipes.