History IA
History IA
History IA
“THE
WRITTEN
ACCOUNT”
by
Rachel
Ho
Mrs.
Judy
Comrie,
Grade
11
History
HL
18th
of
March,
2008
“To
what
extent
was
Trotsky
responsible
for
his
defeat
in
the
1924
power
struggle?”
Part
A:
Plan
of
the
Investigation
Word
Count:
104
In order to answer “To what extent was Trotsky responsible for his defeat in the 1924 power struggle?”, it
is necessary to investigate Trotsky’s own actions during the power struggle following the death of Lenin,
along with other factors that may have contributed to his downfall. These other factors include the past
actions of Lev Trotsky that may have had repercussions later on; secondly, the actions of Stalin, as the
other main contender for the seat of power Lenin had left behind, and other factors of the times that
Trotsky
had
no
control
over.
Leon Trotsky has been credited as one of Bolshevism’s principal leading figures, ranked with the
likes of Lenin and Stalin. Throughout his many years of working for Communism in Russia, Trotsky secured
various victories and achievements which in 1924 made him a candidate for the seat of power following
Lenin’s death, even so far as to be dubbed the “main opponent” of Stalin, who in the end would succeed
the deceased Lenin.1 Among his achievements are his role of leadership in the highly crucial Petrograd
Soviet during 1905, his election to the Bolshevik Central Committee in the August of 1917—a month after
he had joined the Bolsheviks under Lenin.2 In the subsequent September, Trotsky assembled the Red
Guards of the Military Revolutionary Committee, which was crucial in the victorious defense against the
Kornilov attack. The 1917 Revolution and the Bolshevik vistory in the Civil War of 1918‐1919 has also been
attributed to Trotsky’s leadership of the Military Revolutionary Committee.3
Despite his achievements, the Party was divided in their opinion of Trotsky; in his will, Lenin noted
that Stalin and Trotsky represented the ‘two classes’ that would cause a rift within the party, and advised
the Party to take steps to prevent it from happening.4 Lenin was also concerned that Stalin was holding
more power than he had wisdom to utilize, and suggested that he be removed him from his position—A
later
codicil
added
that
it
was
imperative
that
Stalin
be
removed
from
his
post
as
General
Secretary—he
1
Margot
Morcombe
&
Mark
Fielding,
The
Spirit
of
Change:
Russia
in
Revolution.
(Australia,
McGraw‐Hill,
2000)
p
179.
2
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
73
3
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
130
4
Vladimir
Ilyich
Ulyanov,
Collected
Works.
Vol
36,
pp
594‐6
also
noted
Trotsky’s
outstanding
ability,
and
most
blatantly,
his
“excessive
self
assurance”
and
knack
for
the administrative instead of the practical.5
Stalin played no small part in eliminating Trotsky; a great deal of which can be accredited to the
control Stalin had over the appointment of officials within the Party and therefore, the government6. Stalin
was considered ‘peasant’ and was perceived as less intelligent and therefore less of a threat, while Trotsky
on the other hand, was not a crowd favorite, and is said to be arrogant, and that it was his fine, strong
qualities that ‘alienated and outmanoeuvred’ him.7 He was adamantly loyal to the party and stuck with its
decisions even if they were against him, and this was viewed as a weak point by some of the Party—Stalin
utilized this doubt and garnered resentment against Trotsky.8
Another thing that further built up the crowd against Trotsky was his attitude towards the NEP after
Lenin’s death. The triumvirate of Stalin was for “socialism in one country” while Trotsky and a number of
others were supporting “permanent revolution”.9 Stalin and Bukharin noted that permanent revolution
was contradictory to Lenin’s idea of proletarian revolution, and then used it as grounds to refute Trotsky’s
suggestion.10 Stalin had no qualms about bringing up Trotsky’s Menshevik history and roots in order to
destroy him, despite what is said in Lenin’s will, and it was for no small reason that Lenin thought him to be
utmost
threat,
and
therefore
refused
to
hand
him
the
seat
of
power.
11
Morcombe,
Margot.
The
Spirit
of
Change:
Russia
in
Revolution.
Roseville,
Australia:
McGraw‐Hill,
2000.
[307
words]
The
source
is
a
secondary
source
as
it
is
a
textbook
on
the
Russian
Revolution
and
discusses
the
history surrounding the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Published in Australia in 2000, the book was
compiled and jointly written by Margot Morcombe and Mark Fielding, who, based on the expertise put to
practice in making the book, are most probably historians. The book is intended for high school students
studying Russian history for entrance examinations.12 As the book intends to instruct the readers in the
5
Ulyanov,
pp
594‐6
6
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
180
7
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
179
8
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
180
9
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
183
10
Morcombe
and
Fielding,
p
183
11
Ulyanov,
pp
594‐6.
11
Ulyanov,
pp
594‐6.
12
Morcombe
&
Fielding,
p
ix.
skills
of
“raising
questions,
investigating
primary
sources
and
then
drawing
conclusions”13,
the
steps
outlined in each of the analyses in the book are thorough and neatly done.
Based on the origin and purpose of the source, it is valuable in the hindsight that is present, as well
as the wider scope that provides information on the entirety of the Russian Revolution. The source is also
post‐1991, which is when the Soviet archives were opened to public, meaning that the information in the
book is most likely more reliable than a pre‐1991 publication. However, the source is limited by the
broadness of general topic explored, which means there is little detail and less in‐depth exploration of each
historical aspect. Because the book seeks to explore the entire topic of Russian Revolution, it is not
especially valuable in investigating Trotsky. Also, the book concentrates on the development of analysis
skills instead of simply laying out facts, which again limits the amount of information available in it. The
book is meant for high school students and may therefore be limited by the level of vocabulary that is
used. Having to use simpler words means that the information presented may not be communicated as
well as it could be using an alternative vocabulary and writing style.
Ulyanov,
Vladimir
Ilyich
‘Lenin’.
Lenin’s
Testament
and
Codicil.
[235
words]
The
document
used
is
a
primary
source,
as
it
is
an
excerpt
from
the
Lenin’s
last
will
and
testament.
The document is intended to be read out to the Party and its contents to be carried out for the good of the
party. One of the most important parts of the testament is Lenin’s opinion regarding his successor as it is
crucial in affecting the general perception of each candidate for power, which is considered the main
purpose of the document. Considering the origin and purpose of the document, it has to be noted that the
document is obviously biased as it represents Lenin’s individual opinion. However, in the case of this
investigation, the document’s bias can be considered a value, because through it, historians studying the
character of Trotsky may find it useful in its ability to show what Lenin himself—the head of the Party and
one of Trotsky’s closest colleagues and friend—thought of Lev Trotsky.
Despite its values, the source still has limitations; one of which is the bias of the document, along
with its narrow scope. The document is only capable of showing historians what Lenin thought of Trotsky,
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of other people on him. Lenin’s view on Trotsky too, may not
13
Morcombe
&
Fielding,
p
ix
be
completely
or
reasonably
objective.
However,
considering
the
purpose
of
the
investigation,
the
bias
of
the document is negligible and even advantageous.
Lev Trotsky was undoubtedly a fine politician and a strong military figure, which is why it is difficult
to comprehend how Trotsky with his brilliant achievements lost to Stalin, who was at the time considered
to be ‘peasant’ and seemed unlikely competition to the notable Trotsky. In contemplating the widely
accepted belief that Stalin was inferior to Trotsky, it is therefore possible that it was Trotsky’s own fault
that he failed to secure the seat of power that seemed meant for him when Lenin died and left it empty.
One of the great ironies of Trotsky’s fall is that it was not only caused by his shortcomings and
faults. Instead, it was mainly his victories and successful war tactics that led to the perception of Trotsky as
a Bonapartist threat in the Bolshevik party, so that his achievements inspired the Party’s fear and suspicion
instead of commanding respect.
Another main cause in Trotsky’s ‘political suicide’ is the attitude he took towards the Party, its
members, and the decisions it made. Brilliant as he was, Trotsky was very confident in his own abilities and
came across as a highly arrogant person, which distanced other party members from and caused support
for him to wane. He also had disagreements with other members of the Party regarding the decisions that
they should make, the most prominent of which is the conflict between Stalin’s triumvirate and Trotsky
with a few others, who argued about the steps that should be taken and the policy to be implemented to
replace the NEP.
Despite Trotsky’s strongly advocating his own policies, once a decision was made by the Party, he
supported it completely. While this may be viewed as a sign of uncompromising fealty to the Party, others
took it to mean that he was quick to change his mind, even about things that he seemed to invest a lot of
originally placed his loyalty, there certainly seemed to be solid grounds on which these beliefs were
founded. However, it must be brought to attention that the one who brought up Trotsky’s non‐Bolshevik
origins and used it to manipulate public opinion against Trotsky was Joseph Stalin.
Stalin had no doubt had a hand in causing Trotsky’s defeat. As Trotsky’s main competitor for the
seat
of
power,
it
was
only
natural
that
Stalin
did
what
he
could
to
ensure
that
Trotsky
would
be
disadvantaged
in
the
power
struggle.
He
used
the
influence
he
had
garnered
over
his
years
as
General
Secretary—whose job it was to recruit people into the Bolshevik Party—in order to secure the seat of
power for himself. In doing so, he established a tactic by which he would eliminate his competitors, one of
which was Trotsky.
The disagreement between Stalin and Trotsky regarding the next policy to follow the NEP may
have been honestly and naturally precipitated by the crisis and conditions of the time, but the rivalry that
ensued from it was further aggravated by Stalin, who used it as a ploy to present Trotsky as someone who
was unfaithful to Leninist dogma, as it contradicted Lenin’s NEP. Any public opinion against Trotsky was
fueled by Stalin’s efforts to defeat Trotsky as the main contender for the position Lenin left behind him,
such as the belief that Trotsky’s adamant support for any Party decision despite his own contradictory
opinion was not a sign of loyalty, but rather inability to stand fast with his own decisions.
Stalin was also the one who brought up how Trotsky was originally a Menshevik, and thus it was
possible that his loyalties did not lie completely within the Bolshevik party. He did this despite the direct
statement in Lenin’s last will and testament that instructed the Party to set aside this fact and look upon
Lev Trotsky objectively as a fellow comrade under the Bolshevik Party.
Trotsky’s arrogance turned individual Party members against him. His stubbornness in maintaining
his opinions, his misinterpreted loyalty to the Party, even his political and military victories, all came
together to create a strong solid personality which Stalin warped to an extent and utilized to bring about
the defeat of the great Leon Trotsky. Stalin certainly played a part when he used his power base to
influence other people’s opinions of Trotsky, but it was necessary for the basic facts to be true in order for
Stalin to develop believable lies and exaggerations. All things considered, though Stalin may have played a
significant hand in bringing about Trotsky’s defeat in the 1924 power struggle, to a great extent it was
Trotsky himself—his shortcomings, and even his virtues—who was the main reason behind his defeat.