Why Trotsky Did Not Become Soviet Leader 1924

In: Historical Events

Submitted By evewebb
Words 709
Pages 3
Trotsky was born Jewish, he believed he would be persecuted as Jews traditionally were in Russia. This lead to him not pushing himself far enough and not working enough to become Soviet leader. He felt he should be more in the background due to his, despite the fact that many Bolsheviks were Jewish themselves, such as Grigori Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. He was also late to converter to Bolshevism, so many fellow Bolsheviks thought he wasn't that committed and distrusted him. Many old Bolsheviks considered Trotsky to be too much of an intellectual for their liking and was seen as arrogant, unpredictable, indecisive and inconsistent. During the Civil war it was a great victory for Trotsky as he lead the Red Army and won the war however he also fell out with Stalin. Therefore Stalin objected to Trotsky's employment of ex-tsarists officers and he disobeyed his orders. This made Stalin able to control Trotsky and get an advantage on his to become Soviet leader. Also he made no attempt to build a base of support within the party which was a big mistake when the party were fighting after Lenin’s death and it made it very difficult for Trotsky when confronting the Party Congress which was was filled with Stalin’s supporters. Another reason was that other Bolsheviks feared Trotsky, as he has links in the Red Army and may use them to form a military. They also feared him because he was foreseen as a dictator and was worried that he wanted a revolution thought the world and everyone to rule by ‘socialism’. However Russia wasn't as complete socialist country and may wanted to focus on Russia to begin with, such as Lenin famous quote- ‘Socialism in One Country’ which proved very popular in 1925, with party member and attracting the right wing of the party because it seemed to fit in with the NEP. Stalin was Trotsky’s main opposition, and Stalin had many advantages to…...

Similar Documents

Why Did Stalin Emerge as the Sole Leader of Ussr by 1929?

...Why did Stalin emerge as the sole leader of USSR by 1929? One of the main reasons why Stalin emerged as sole leader was because of how he used pragmatism to manipulate Lenin’s opinion of him to suggest that he was the most favourable leader to carry on Marxism throughout Russia. This key event that secured Stalin’s public support was around the time of Lenin’s funeral. His role as general secretary gave him the ‘grey blur’ title because of his reputation of being invisible, focusing his time on important paperwork. When Lenin released his testament, Stalin used his reputation to change it, which had previously had influential and opinionated views on Stalin, and if seen by the public, would inevitably have changed the success of Stalin’s emergence to a failure at becoming leader. Lenin’s real opinion of Stalin was highly negative. He was so concerned about Stalin becoming leader that he made a plea in his testament to do anything to stop this. ‘I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead.’ As well as his view to not see him as leader, Lenin described Stalin as ‘rude’, but more importantly, favored Trotsky to be his successor in the testament, stating that he was ‘most capable’ individual to lead Russia. If it wasn’t for Stalin using his role as secretary of state to keep this document hidden, these opinions of Lenin would have influenced the public hugely, as his death alone attracted......

Words: 1139 - Pages: 5

How Managers Become Leaders

...Spotlight on LeadershIp Spotlight Artwork Adam Ekberg Country Road, 2005 Ink-jet print HBr.orG Michael D. Watkins is a cofounder of Genesis Advisers, a leadership development firm specializing in onboarding and transition acceleration, and a professor at IMD. He is the author of The First 90 Days and Your Next Move (both from Harvard Business Press). The seven seismic shifts of perspective and responsibility by Michael D. Watkins How Managers Become Leaders June 2012 Harvard Business review 65 SPOTLIGHT ON LEADERSHIP arald (not his real name) is a highpotential leader with 15 years of experience at a leading European chemical company. He started as an assistant product manager in the plastics unit and was quickly transferred to Hong Kong to help set up the unit’s new Asian business center. As sales there soared, he soon won a promotion to sales manager. Three years later he returned to Europe as the marketing and sales director for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, overseeing a group of 80 professionals. Continuing his string of successes, he was promoted to vice president of marketing and sales for the polyethylene division, responsible for several lines of products, related services, and a sta of nearly 200. All of Harald’s hard work culminated in his appointment as the head of the company’s plastic resins unit, a business with more than 3,000 employees worldwide. Quite intentionally, the company had assigned him to run a small but thriving......

Words: 4817 - Pages: 20

'the Truth Is That Trotsky Refrained from Attacking Stalin Because He Felt

...that resulted in a shift from collective leadership in the Soviet Union to Josef Stalin emerging and establishing his position as the individual leader of the state. To the majority of the Communist Party this was an improbable development as it was thought Trotsky would succeed Lenin. Trotsky had originally affirmed allegiance to the Mensheviks after the spilt of the social democrats in 1903, nevertheless the outbreak of revolution in 1917 witnessed Trotsky joining the Bolshevik party and playing a crucial part in the communist takeover that followed. He began his time in government as the foreign commissar and was principle negotiator in the peace terms with Germany; he then became war commissar and played a vital role in the preservation of the Bolshevik regime by leading the red army to victory against the whites in the civil war. It was down to these factors that Trotsky was seen as the evident heir of Lenin. As well as this Stalin had never posed any threat, Kamenev had described Stalin as ‘a small town politician… a man with no ideas or ambitions’ . However, Trotsky and other leading politicians such as Kamenev and Zinoviev underestimated Stalin’s abilities. Trotsky especially, felt secure as the next successor to Lenin and so when opportunities arose to eradicate Stalin from the party he made the mistake of not taking hold of them. For example, Lenin’s last testament called for the removal of Stalin however Trotsky failed to publish it as he felt it would damage party......

Words: 2646 - Pages: 11

Why Did the Tsar Survive the 1905 Revolution?

...the dynasty. An extremely significant reason in why the Tsar remained during the 1905 revolution was because there no political alliance between other political groups. This was evident in the Liberal revolutionaries; the Liberals did not represent the people during the revolution as their aims were to share power with the Tsar. They ignored the initial aim of the people which was to overthrow Tsar. Moreover, the Social Democrats wanted a socialist state. However, the people of Russia didn’t understand these revolutionary theories, as majority were illiterate, and all they wanted was better economic livelihood. This lack of central coordination enabled the Tsar to command for so long. Along with the Orthodox Church heavily influencing the people of Russia, so did the political parties. However, the parties did not affiliate; in fact there was friction amongst the parties. Political parties having disagreements meant their priorities will sway away from trying to overthrow the Tsar, this is what enable is long reign. On the contrary, if the political parties were to affiliate/unite then it would be less challenging for them to abolish the Tsar’s regime. As they would have a lot more physical backing and ideas which will help them dethrone the Tsar. Moreover, as the political groups didn’t form a type of alliance, they didn’t capitalise on the rebels which formed masses. The masses fuelled the 1905 Revolution; however these masses did not have a sense of direction. The masses......

Words: 1084 - Pages: 5

Trotsky

...often does has opened up a series of questions, It is generally accepted that Leon Trotsky played a greater role in organising and executing the Bolshevik revolution. Even Joseph Stalin acknowledges his major rival’s role in the events in Pravda on the 10th November, 1918, “All practical work in connection with the organisation of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet...the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky...” This statement by Stalin confirms the role of Trotsky in the revolution, however Terry Brotherstone, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, argues that “The Bolshevik victory in the October Revolution would have been just as unthinkable and unrealisable without Trotsky as it would have been unthinkable and unrealisable without Lenin”. It has been suggested often that whilst Lenin was the visionary of the Bolsheviks, Trotsky was the practitioner. This is most evident in his contribution in the lead up to and during the Russian civil war, which led to the ultimate success of the Bolsheviks. Leon Trotsky had joined the Bolsheviks much later than other members of the party. During his time in London in the early nineteen hundreds, Trotsky's firm belief in Karl Marx led him to his ideology of a ‘Permanent Revolution’. This meant that at first he was opposed to Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik. and as a result of this early disagreement, he joined the rival......

Words: 3069 - Pages: 13

Why Were Stalin's Opponents Unable to Prevent Him from Becoming the Leader of the Ussr by 1929?

...Why were Stalin's opponents unable to prevent him from becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929? Stalin and 4 other men ; Bukharin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were competing to become leader of Russia after Lenin’s death in 1924. Since you couldn’t vote because it was democratic it was harder to choose become the leader of Russia. One of the reasons that his opponents were unable to prevent him from becoming leader of the USSR was Stalin used the job of General Secretary to promote peoples loyalty to him, to remove from the party people who were disloyal and to collect information on every party member. After Lenin's death he waited, allowing other Politburo members to state their preferred policies - he then ganged up on groups of them, using his alliances and his party contacts to destroy the opposition. His did this twice in the 1920s, destroying Trotsky and his supporters and Zinoviev and Kamenev and their supporters. This left him as the ruler of Russia by about 1929. Another reason is Lenin’s testament. The communist didn’t reveal what the testament said. In the testament Lenin said this about Stalin. "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage,......

Words: 715 - Pages: 3

Why Did Stalin Rather Than Trotsky Emerge as Leader of the Ussr

...Why did Stalin rather than Trotsky emerge as leader of the USSR in 1929? When Lenin died in 1924 there was no clear leader of the communist party. By 1929 Stalin had successfully managed to take power and begin his regime as leader. Here are the reasons to why Stalin beat Trotsky. Firstly many members of the communist distrusted Trotsky due to his Menshevik past and didn’t see him as a true and Loyal Bolshevik. He didn’t join to Bolshevism until 1917 and this made the ‘old’ Bolsheviks suspect him. The distrust continued with his role as the commander of the Red Army and his opportunism is switching alliances against and with other colleagues like Zinoviev and Kamenev. Due to this many suspected him of becoming a dictator and they wanted to avoid this at all costs. Furthermore Trotsky had no strong Party base and even Lenin had criticised his personal qualities in his Testament. Trotsky made no attempt to build up a power base and this was a crucial mistake as Stalin had a strong party base which enabled him to completely outmanoeuvre him. During the 1920’s when Trotsky had to confront party congress it was packed full on supporters of Stalin’s. This made it impossible for Trotsky to become popular due to Stalin using his position of General Secretary to his advantage. The position in the party administration which Stalin held was manipulated by Stalin to his advantage. It gave him enormous power over the policy and personnel of the party. He was able to place people who......

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Why Did the Us Become Militarily Involved in Korea?

...Why did the US become militarily involved in Korea? In June 1950, 90,000 soldiers from the communist Korean People’s Army crossed the 38th Parallel into South Korea. The most important reason for a military response from the US was the document NSC 68, which stated that they must meet communism wherever it arises. Due to this document, it was the US assumption that the invasion on South Korea was not a Civil War due to the events in Korea, and the permanent divide in 1948. However, there was also US domestic policies, and Truman’s fear of being accused of being ‘soft on communism,’ as well as the US based organisation, the UN, which was a new institution, which Truman had to support. Furthermore, containment in Europe and Asia and the threat to the balance of power in these continents prompted US retaliation, as did the threat to Japan and the US defence perimeter. NSC 68 highlights the importance of the defeat of Communism due to the threat of the ‘destruction of civilisation itself,’ and that the ‘peace of the free world’ is in peril. Due to the US assumptions that communism is evil, which is demonstrated in countries such as Czechoslovakia, where political parties and freedom of speech were banned, Hungary, where political opposition meant imprisonment, and Bulgaria, when any opposition was executed, Truman understood the importance of this document. It recommended rearmament and increase of defence, as well as ‘keeping the US public fully informed and cognizant......

Words: 1727 - Pages: 7

Why Did the Us Become Increasingly Involved in South East Asia in the 1950s?

...whole of South East Asia will be threatened”, thus confirming the public’s fears and compelling greater US involvement in South East Asia in order to prevent this from happening. Another crucial reason for the increasing US involvement in South East Asia was their response to the Geneva Accords in July 1954 and their consequential support of Diem. The US did not sign the accords and were suspicious that the elections to be carried out in 1956 would result in Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader of North Vietnam, gaining power over the entire country. Given that in Korea division of the country appeared to have worked in containing communism, it appeared to the US that their best bet was to build up South Vietnam as a buffer. Diem, a strongly anti-communist Roman Catholic with powerful friendships in Washington and the CIA, was appointed prime minister of South Vietnam by Bao Dai in June 1954 and the US agreed to send massive amounts of aid, around $2billion, to his government and also MAAG training the ARVN from 1955. Diem proceeded to refuse to discuss the 1956 elections, effectively breaking the Geneva Accords, and America did nothing to stop this. Due to the US allowing Diem to obstruct the elections, they could not then leave Vietnam or a civil war would’ve possibly ensued, which would’ve likely been won by Ho Chi Minh’s communists – the US obviously couldn’t allow this and so their involvement was once again increased. Furthermore, the US support of the French in......

Words: 914 - Pages: 4

Why Did the Civil Rights Movement Become More Fragmented After 1966?

...Why did the Civil Rights movement become fragmented after 1966? The civil rights movement became fragmented after 1966 for a number of reasons such as the difference between peace and violent methods, legal campaigns, collaboration with whites and the difference between separation or integration. The decision to use peaceful or violent protests was one of the reasons as to why the civil rights movement became fragmented after 1966. King advocated that protests should remain peaceful in order for them to get what they want. He showed he could do this by having many peaceful marches for example the March on Washington which JFK feared would become violent but King proved him wrong. However, after the Meredith shooting CORE and SNCC put an emphasis on more radical ways such as self-defence and the use of violence. Leader of SNCC Stokely Carmichael argued that black people needed to use violence to defend themselves. Therefore, this caused the civil rights movement to become fragmented because the difference of violent and non-violent protests caused divisions between the civil rights groups. Another reason the civil rights campaign became fragmented after 1966 was the disagreement of whether or not using the legal system was an effective method of advancing civil rights. The NAACP and SCLC fought for legal change and were committed to working with the American legal system. However, the lack of legal segregation in the north meant that black Americans in northern states......

Words: 583 - Pages: 3

Soviet Culture 1924-53

...what extent did Soviet culture perform a political role in the USSR in the years 1924-53? Following the death of Lenin, Stalin's totalitarian regime relied heavily on fear, however it is undeniable that Soviet culture also played a large political role in the USSR throughout the years 1924-53. Stalin believed that culture and arts should perform a social and political role, and so it can be said that Soviet culture was as much a part of social control in the Soviet Union as the Great Terror was. In the early stages of Communist rule, the Soviet authorities tolerated a large amount of diversity in revolutionary art and culture. The 1920s in Russia was considered to be a period of experimentation within the disciplines of art, music and architecture. Russian art in the 1920s often celebrated modern industrial technology, therefore it promoted the revolutionary government. However, due to Stalin's expression of his discontent with Soviet art, the 1930s saw the deconstruction of this artistic and cultural diversity. Stalin claimed that revolutionary art, when fully understood, should not express individual creativity, but instead should showcase government views. Artistic experimentation ended under Stalin's leadership during the 1930s, culture now had to serve a political purpose and promote socialism, along with its achievements (particularly the achievements of the Five-Year Plans). 1932 saw the reorganisation of Soviet literature, when it was proposed that all Soviet......

Words: 753 - Pages: 4

Why Were Stalin’s Opponents Unable to Prevent Him from Becoming Leader of the Ussr by 1929?

...Why were Stalin’s opponents unable to prevent him from becoming leader of the USSR by 1929? Within this essay question I’m going to be discussing four different factors that aided Joseph Stalin in becoming leader of the USSR by 1929. These four factors are Trotsky’s errors, errors of others, powerbases and Stalin’s own skills. Personally I believe, based on my current knowledge of all four factors, that the powerbases is going to be a highly significant factor in terms of why Stalin’s opponents were unable to prevent him becoming leader. However, the other three factors are still very important and also played a role in helping Stalin. Therefore, I will be discussing all four of the factors and what effects they had. Errors made by Leon Trotsky were some of the main reasons why Stalin was able to become leader of the USSR by 1929. After Lenin’s death in 1924 there was wide speculation that Trotsky, head of the red army would succeed Lenin. Lenin wrote a testament outlining his opinions on the head Bolsheviks, and Stalin was described as being very dangerous and should be dismissed from the party immediately. However despite this, Stalin eventually became the leader of the USSR. The reason why Trotsky was the most likely candidate to succeed Lenin was because he was very popular among young communists, this was due to his revolutionary heroism in 1905, 1917 and during the civil war, coupled with his stirring speeches. However, despite the fact that Trotsky was clearly more......

Words: 1884 - Pages: 8

How Did the Arts Serve the Soviet State?

...How did the arts serve the Soviet State? The arts had had a different purpose throughout the era of the Soviet State. Nevertheless the Soviet State was wholly under the control of the Soviet System, which Stalin used as an ideology and as a tool to disseminate state polemics. The system was required to suppress the opposition and create social consciousness of an obedient Soviet person. However first it is important to mention that the Soviet State had officially been formed in 1922 and lasted until 1991. And thus the debate concerning the service that the arts had acted upon should start from 1922. The Soviet Art in the early 1920s was relatively pluralistic due to the fact that there were many different schools of thoughts present. There was the avant-garde art, which was considered bourgeois but could not be gotten rid of, due to the fact that the country was still in a state of anarchy. Artists like Salvatore Dali or Pablo Picasso were very popular among soviet artists. (need more info). There was a bigger freedom of expression during the twenties that the artists had not experienced later on. Indeed Anna Akhmatova, a famous Russian author and a poet had said once "To think that the best years of our lives were during the war, when so many people were being killed, when we were starving and my son was doing forced labour.” That patently signifies the extent of control that the artists were under. Moreover her very close friend Boris Pasternak confirmed the...

Words: 1500 - Pages: 6

Why Did Women’s Issues Suddenly Become so Prominent in American Culture?

...Why did women’s issues suddenly become so prominent in American culture? There were always women who wanted more. They were secure with themselves and wanted to prove they were capable of doing more and being equal. There were people like Anne Hutchinson who was banished because of her challenging the way men dominated the church. During the nineteenth century women demanded more rights that started from solitary events to more organized protesting’s. Immense changes came throughout the United States during the nineteenth century that changed the lives of all women of different social status. In the start of the 1820’s a lot of white women began working in mills. These women were working outside the home along with men of all social status, but middle class women were still held to the standard that they had to be homemaker’s and tend to the home, be submissive, and tend to her husbands’ needs at home. Because women were now working outside the home, doing work men were doing, this helped them to start acting politically. These women were referred to as “mill girls” that worked long hours and in dangerous conditions. In the 1830’s women started organizing rally’s because they wanted to have improved work conditions and higher wages. The women of middle-class status felt a sense of a well-organized unit because of those women, this would later enable them to work together to demand equal rights. These women were concerned about the well being of the poor, this......

Words: 519 - Pages: 3

How to Become the Leader

...How to Become the Leader I Want/Need to Be Jami Fedro Rasmussen College Author Note This paper is being submitted on May 28, 2016, for Michael Schneider’s B492/MAN4143 Contemporary Leadership Challenges online course. Leadership is a very broad term and has many definitions depending on the situation. If you ask anyone what it means to be a leader, you will likely hear something unique every time because everyone has his or her own idea of what leadership is. Even though the definitions may vary, the general sentiments remain the same: Leaders are people who know how to achieve goals and inspire people along the way. Leaders will have a vision of what can be achieved and then communicate this to others and evolve strategies for realizing the vision. They motivate people and are able to negotiate for resources and other support to achieve their goals. Many people view management as leadership but it is not. Leadership comes from influence and influence can come from anyone at any level and in any role. Being able to help lift others up and work together toward a common mission will build influence. True leadership comes when those around you are influenced by your life in a positive way (Helmrich, 2016). Leadership is about positively impacting others through example and enabling a continuous rippling effect. To me leadership reflects in everyday actions and behaviors. Being a leader is not a one-time thing, it is a life-long commitment. Leadership is...

Words: 1668 - Pages: 7

ABBA Gold: Greatest Hits | HD Zoom (2015) | Chap 646