The History of the Russian Revolution Essay

Assess the view that it was mainly the tactics of the Bolshevik leadership that made possible the October Revolution.

“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.

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.

Trotsky’s leadership during the civil war was essential for the victory of the reds. His organisational skills and strong will transformed the red army into an effective fighting force. However a combination of factors also attributed to the Reds seizure of power , this includes; their geographical strength and control of industry and the weaknesses of their opponents.

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

The Russian revolution was a monumental change for Russia they went from a government of ordocrasy to communism, with evidence it will show that this truly was a change Russia needed. Yet many argue that the death and outcome was not what the people had imagined when agreeing to communism.

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

The detachment from the Cold War politics that pervaded the study of Lenin and Stalinism and increased access to source material previously hidden has created a more objective viewpoint that almost mediates between Soviet and right wing Western historians, both identifying changes and lines of continuity. One such historian writes ‘Excesses were the essence of historical Stalinism, and they are what really require explanation’[2]. Identified here is the fact that many of the ideas and practices seen under Lenin were continued and most importantly, developed by Stalin. His personality, even Pipes admits, sets him apart from Lenin and goes some way towards explaining the frequent examples of what Stalin would have called ‘Leninist’ ideologies and acts taken to a new level. One such example is the use of terror.

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’.

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

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

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.

The assumption of power by Joseph Stalin was arguably one of the most significant periods of Bolshevik Russia’s history. Stalin is recognised as one of the most influential men to have ever lead Russia, and he did so through the largest war the world has ever faced, World War II, and through the beginning of one of the most tense periods of modern history, the Cold War. It is easy however, to get lost in the legacy Stalin left behind, and forget about the events leading up to his total control over the communist regime of the 20th century Russia.

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

Preobrazhensky’s indignation towards Homo Sovieticus and the new regime is plainly apparent throughout the text, with the professor advising that, lest one lose one’s appetite, one ought to refrain from reading soviet newspapers or discussing subjects of Bolshevism at the dinner table.17 His disillusionment is evident in his failure to recognise the alleged Soviet emancipation of women who were, according to B. Clements, "independent from prescribed roles and male domination".18 Unlike Lenin, who mourned what he described as the capitalistic “exclusion of women”19, Preobrazhensky would appear to remain unconvinced by Marx’s belief that “social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex”20, attempting to undermine a female member of the housing committee who he describes, with a disgusted tone, as “a woman dressed as a man”21 to which they “fell silent and their mouths fell open”22, questionning the Professor as to “what difference does that make, comrade?”23 Preobrazhensky’s disdain for the regime is evident in this