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. One way and the main way that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government was the victory of the Civil war. In 1918 Russia was plunged into civil war when the White army, a group of pro tsarist and pro provisional government supporters attacked the Bolsheviks. However the reds won the war due the work of Leon Trotsky and his leadership of the red army. For example Trotsky organised and disciplined the army very well, he recruited ex tsarist army officers who were experienced in combat also due to his recruitment strategy membership rose from 7000 in March 1918 to 5 million in September 1920 and he also organised key victories such as the last battle between white and red forces between the 7th and 15th of November 1920.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of red army was responsible for survival of the Bolshevik government? The Bolsheviks had some control of Russia, when tsar had been abdicated and when the provisional government was in charge for a short period. The Bolsheviks had then taking control of Russia from the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks' next aim was to maintain their weak hold on the reins of power. But the only way Bolsheviks were to be in full power was to win the civil war in 1918 against the white army. Who were also looking to become 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.
One of Stolypins main priorities was to get rid of opposition he has stated ‘repression first and then and only then reform’ so we know he felt in order to be able to move Russia forward, opposition needed to be out ruled. To an extent it can be argued that his repression tactic did help to strengthen the tsarist regime as between the years 1906-1911 very little to no organised effective oppostion threatened the Tsarist regime. So by this we can say he was effective as opposition was brought down
All of the rulers of Russia had similar priorities, although some were more forceful than others. The main ones were the retention of power, being an autocracy or a dictatorship and crushing opposition. The communist rulers had different priorities however to the Tsars in terms of political ideology and social aims. The Tsars were not uniform in their aims though as each one faced different situations and wanted a different kind of ruling. For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia.
The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology. The communists’ efforts to represent the people is corroborated by the introduction of the soviet by the Provisional Government, which was organised as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Although the presence of the Zemstva and Duma, introduced by Alexander II and Nicholas II respectively, presents some evidence the Tsars may have attempted to give Russia a sense of democracy, it was ran by the nobility so it was not representative of the people and thus heavily autocratic in their rule. Conversely, although the communists and the Tsars appear to have ruled differently in their top-down approach, they in fact did not because in practice the communists gave an extremely limited extent of power to the proletariat. The Provisional Government’s vacillating rule on the other hand, from heavily autocratic to democratic led to the governments demise.
How accurate is it to say that Lenin’s leadership was the most important reason, for Bolsheviks success in the revolution of October/November 1917? In February 1917 no one would’ve expected the Bolsheviks to take political power by October 1917. They were less popular than parties such as the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. Also, some leading Bolsheviks such as Kamenev even supported the Provisional Government in February1917. This was why it was crucial for Lenin to show strong leadership which he did.
This indicates how there would have been a distinct difference in the way the Russian people saw who was governing them. For example the Tsars ruled over their people in a very paternalistic way, they were seen as the “little father” to the people. Lenin was not perceived as a father to the people, instead he was seen as “the boss”, a phrase that could be seen much more ruthless than
Beowulf's unselfishness and unfailing loyalty gave him quite a reputation and much popularity with both the Danes and Geats subjects and their kings. Reputation is what motivates thanes to be loyal to their rulers. The more courageous acts they performed for their country, the better their reputation and popularity. Therefore their rank in the social ladder would increase as well. The fact that not all thanes could be as courageous and have so many heroic achievements for their countries and rulers is why Beowulf seems so ideal and extraordinary.
He showed true leadership, he taught, and believed in God. Kamehameha wanted to make Hawai’I a better island, and so he did. He started trade and commerce with other countries, while at the same time keeping his people satisfied. He traded sandalwood and other goods. He also had so much respect from the people of Hawai’I.