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).
![]()
Bookmarks