Lenin vs Trotsky

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I vote since I believe without the presence of either the communist revolution in Russia wouldn't have been possible.
.

[Martok]

.
I vote since I believe without the presence of either the communist revolution in Russia would have been possible.
.

Don't you mean "wouldn't" have been possible?

In any case, I tend to agree. I think both were crucial to the Bolsheviks' success, and that the revolution might not have sustained itself in the long term otherwise.

[Craterus]

The arguments so far say that Trotsky was more important to Bolshevik victory in the civil war. So, I'd like to hear some opinions on these:

1) Lenin presided over the Supreme Council Of Defence and, from there, he had direct control over the Red Army outlining policies that regarded the conduct of the civil war.
2) Lenin knew the civil war was coming and had planned thoroughly for it. He was easily the master strategist in the Bolshevik campaign. For example, he was behind the Land Decree Act, allowing peasants to do what they were already doing (removing landowners and taking land, right?). Although it didn't guarantee the support of the peasantry, it was a decent start and, compared with the brutality and intentions (return to Tsarist autocracy) of some White troops, made the Reds seem the lesser evil.
3) It might even be fair to say that all of Lenin's major policies from the October Revolution onwards had the civil war in mind. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (something Trotsky was strongly opposed to) allowed the Bolsheviks to build up and prepare for the civil war and it's fair to say that the better preparation and organisation of the Red Army was a key reason for the victory.

[CountArach]

When are we considering the Revolution to have ended?

[Ramses II CP]

It was Trotsky who, over Lenin and Stalin's objections, kept the experienced officer corp from the former Russian army in position to render advice and prevent the complete collapse of the new 'Red' Russians forces when they had to almost quadruple the size of the Red army in 1918. IMHO as a duffer and non-historian that decision alone preserved the Reds from utter disaster. His severe enforcement of discipline went hand in hand with that measure, but without the advice of those men the Reds would've been raising a mob, not an army, and would've been quickly butchered in the following battles.

None of the victories in the field would have been possible without first organizing an effecient and manageable armed force in 1918, and it was only barely at Trotsky's insistence that the frequent defections of those former officers was overlooked and their advice put into practice. An army cannot be created (Or massively expanded) by sheer desire or political zeal, it requires experience, coordination, and intelligence. Trotsky took advantage of what little of those the Reds had, and successfully orchestrated the expansion of the Red army on that basis.

It's hard to argue with results in the field too. Trostsky was driven to seek success in battles at the front over success in the political games back at home. Contrast this with Lenin's frequent shifting political alliances and inconstant policy decisions.

Of course though those political battles would have been meaningless without victory in the field, it was politics that ultimately broke Trotsky (And the Russian Revolution, depending on how you view Stalin's role during and after WWII).

[Craterus]

Actually, I'm fairly sure the use of Tsarist officers was (albeit maybe reluctantly) supported by Lenin at the 8th Party Conference in 1919. However, it was the cause of the riff between Trotsky and Stalin and yes, I'd agree that it was an important factor in Red victory.

[Furious Mental]

It's all well and good to point out how Trotsky managed the Red Army, but the fact is that politics was where the revolution was won, and Lenin was clearly the most important politician. White victories in battle were meaningless as long as they remained largely a cabal of aristocrats and generals whose views and tactics, which pre-dated the advent of mass politics, failed to change to suit the 20th century. Lenin took seemingly un-Bolshevik positions but that is part and parcel of why he was successful. He was totally committed to overthrowing the Tsar and the provisional government, and instituting a Bolshevik regime, but he was pragmatic enough to change his policies to gain political support and build up the Bolshevik juggernaut to the point where it could ultimately crush anyone else.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

I vote since I believe without the presence of either the communist revolution in Russia would have been possible.

Don't you mean "wouldn't" have been possible?

I'm p0wη€d.
.