Free Essay

To What Extent Was the Red Victory in the Civil War Due to the Skill and Leadership of Trotsky?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By hhopkins26
Words 1166
Pages 5
To What Extent Was the Red Victory in the Civil War Due to the Skill and Leadership of Trotsky?
The red victory in the civil war in 1919 may have been due to the skill and leadership of Trotsky who was the founder and first leader of the Red Army. As well as this there were other factors which contributed such as geographical factors, the unity and organisation of the reds and the support that they had.
The reds were victorious in the civil war due to the skill and leadership of Trotsky who had been made commissar for war in 1918. He restored harsh military discipline and professionalism to the ‘worker’s and peasants red army’ by reintroducing the death penalty for those who did wrong which meant that men were made to fight as more of an effective fighting force. He also reorganised the army and so it had a strict hierarchy and he brought back thousands of former Tsarist officers to train and command the units. To do this he held their families hostage which meant that their loyalty was ensured. In addition to this he attached a political commissar to each army of the unit and ended soldiers committee’s and officer’s elections which meant that the loyalty of the officers was ensured so he would retain power, For those men who were unable to fight, due to age or physical inability, formed labour battalions. This meant that the Front received more help and nobody had an excuse to not fight in the army and so it would prevent people from thinking they could use injuries to get out of the fighting. His good leadership is significant because he gave the military direction and so they were able to fight in a co-ordinated way which meant that they were a more effective fighting force. Although Trotsky was not much of a military strategist, he was the overall person in charge and his strengths were his energy, passion and organisational abilities. He made regular visits to the front where fighting was fiercest which meant that the men were given more support and their morale would be raised so they would be encouraged to carry on fighting and not retreat. This is significant because by keeping the men from retreating they were forced to continue in the war and so this led to the victory of the reds. In contrast, the white leaders were less effective than Trotsky. They were cruel and treated their men with contempt which meant that there was very little warmth or support for the white leaders from the men and many of them deserted. The level of discipline and corruption as a result of this was a very high. In Omsk where Kolchak's army was based, uniforms and munitions were sold on the black market while officers lived in brothels. So overall the whites were poorly led and so were ineffective against the well organised reds.
There were geographical factors involved in the victory of the reds. The Bolsheviks actually only controlled 15% of the Russian Empire but this area they did hold was the central area which included Petrograd and Moscow which were major industrial centres and had been modernised by Witte's policies between 1892 and 1903 especially the iron, coal and steel industries. This is significant because it mean that they reds had access to the resources which would allow them to make war resources such as weapons which helped them in the war. As well as this, the areas they held were densely populated being cities and this meant that they were able to conscript more men to fight and so their army was bigger. Having control of the cities also mean that they had control over the railways which was extremely useful because as a result of this they could effectively move men and resources around and they had access to the grain supplies. This is significant because the reds had a well equipped fighting force with large numbers unlike the whites who were vastly outnumbered. As well as this, the whites were scattered around the edges of the central area held by the reds so were separated by large distances which mean that communications, moving men and equipment and co-ordinating attacks was difficult. As a result of this the whites were an ineffective fighting force.
The reds had great unity and organisation which also contributed to the victory of the reds in the civil war. The Bolsheviks had a single, unified command structure which mean that everyone in the party was fighting for the same reason and so organising the troops and the attacks on the whites was much easier. It also meant that there were fewer internal disagreements and mutinies in the army leading to desertions. This is significant because it made the reds more powerful against the whites who were not as unified as them. The whites were made up of different groups who all had completely different aims and beliefs, they couldn't agree on whether they were fighting for monarchism, republicanism or for the Constituent Assembly. This meant that it was hard for them to co-operate and develop a political strategy. This is significant because as a result of this the whites could not come up with a military strategy which was co-ordinated because the white generals wouldn't work together as they didn't trust one another for example they were all suspicious of Kolchak's motives and intentions.
The red army also had a lot of support from the peasants which the whites did not have and this contributed to their victory. The peasant support was crucial because it supplied the main body of soldiers. In order to win over the peasants Lenin has legitimised their right to keep their land while the whites had made it clear that it would be restored to its former owners, Kolchak had actually given estates to landlords who hadn't owned them before the revolution and so the peasants were more likely to support the reds. The Bolsheviks had a core support group of some workers and soldiers but they didn't have widespread popular support as a result of War Communism and the way they managed the cities and food supply. But the urban workers and peasants wanted to protect the gains of 1917 which he reds seemed to offer the best chance of doing because the whites were associated with the old system of government. This is significant because it mean that the reds had a larger support base than the whites and so had a greater supply of soldiers.
To conclude the skill and leadership of Trotsky was the main reason for the red victory in the civil war. It was because of him that they were able to take control of the areas they held and keep it. By co-ordinating the army he made it much more effective than the whites and so they were able to defeat them.…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Victory in the North: Us Civil War

...| Victory in The North | A synopsis on the outcome of the U.S. Civil War | | [Type the author name] | 11/6/2010 | | Since the final battle of the American Civil War was fought in 1865, scholars have debated the reasons for the Union’s victory over the Confederacy. Historians have attributed the war’s outcome to many factors, some of which include Lincoln’s superior leadership, the South’s failure to diplomatically secure foreign intervention, emancipated slaves enlisting in the Union army, and the military strategies employed by the North’s generals. Both the Union and Confederacy expected a quick victory, each believing it possessed several advantages over the other. In the end, however, the North’s overwhelming superiority in manufacturing and industry proved to be far too great a hurdle to overcome by the South’s agricultural economy. While the consensus seems to be that there was no single contributing factor in the War’s outcome, there are several that should be highlighted, beginning with Lincoln’s leadership role.  Lincoln’s chief priority from the beginning of his presidency was to preserve the Union. The way in which he achieved this was through skillful use of executive power provided by the Constitution. In the secession crisis, Lincoln relied on the prerogative element in the executive power to prevent the destruction of the government. His decisive action marked the first steps pointing to the reinauguration of the national authority and......

Words: 992 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

To What Extent Was the Russo Japanese War the Cause of the 1905 Revolution?

...Anna Stanley To what extent was the Russo Japanese War the cause of the 1905 Revolution? Russia was in an extremely delicate state before the 1905 Revolution. There were many causes behind leaving Russia’s population increasingly alienated, provoked, and feeling let down by the Tsar. .. ..The Tsars plan to use a successful war in the far East as an opportunity to divert peoples attention from the deteriorating conditions back home hopelessly backfired. There was mass humiliation in defeat and the Russo Japanese war irrevocably revealed the inefficiency, weakness and corruption of the Tsarist state. ..However, the Russo Japanese War wasn’t entirely to blame for the 1905 revolution. Nevertheless, there was a great impact caused by the Army’s embarrassing mistakes. ..The army highly underestimated the capability of the Japanese. Firstly, the Army lost the battle of Mukden, One of the largest land battles to be fought before WW1. Russian casualties amounted to nearly 90,000. The Russians had also lost most of their combat supplies as well as most of their artillery and heavy machine guns. ..The Russian Army was also defeated in the battle of......

Words: 816 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Russian Civil War

...CIVIL WAR EVENTS - the Brest Litovsk Treaty (March 1918) was negotiated by Trotsky….he and he Bolsheivks wanted the int’l rev to spread and so from their vantage point the treaty were “stalling tactics”…the treaty gave up Poland, Baltics, and all territory in the North that Russia had gained since 1618…all told 1.3 mill km2, 26% of her people and 75% of her iron and capacity…needless to say Lenin had hard time “selling” the Treaty - the October coup d’état = “beginning of the Revolution” not end….Bolsheviks in the provinces + the centre had to be decide how to handle local Soviets which asserted authority but happened to be dominated by Mensheviks. - long difficult struggles against anarchy, decentralization + separatist tendencies lay ahead – the future form of gov’t = an “open question” - for Lenin, “Dictatorship of proletariat” was what the revolution needed…now this was a slogan and principle that fit into the circumstances of the winter 1917–1918…but, what did it mean?...it meant: a) crushing counter revolution of the old ruling class – the dictatorship would have to have coercive organs like Tsarist police (i.e. the Bolsheviks would assemble the Cheka) b) that the dictatorship of Bolshevik Party and other political parties was incompatible…and would pose problems c) that giving broad powers to unions + factory committees could in itself be problematic… what if worker ideas differed from Bolsheviks? Problems for the Bolsheviks 1) one underlying problem......

Words: 3349 - Pages: 14

Free Essay

To What Extent Were the Army Generals Responsible for the Outbreak of Civil War in 1936?

...On the 17th July 1936 a coup was launched by the army generals in attempt to overthrow the Popular Front government that had only been elected into power in February 1936. The coup was ordered by General Mola on this date because of the assassination of a leading monarchist, Jose Calvo Sotelo by the Assault Guard. However the outbreak of civil war also had underlying long-term causes such as social divisions in Spain and more short-term ones such as a lack of political consensus during the time of the Second Republic. This essay will consider the extent to which the different factors were responsible for the outbreak of civil war in 1936. The assassination of Calvo Sotelo, a leading monarchist who opposed the Popular Front, by the Assault Guard was responsible for General Mola ordering his instructions for the coup to go ahead that ultimately led to civil war. On 13th July 1936, in reprisal for the murder of a Jose Castillo, a left-wing member of the Assault Guard, his colleagues drew up a list of prominent right-wing targets, arrested Sotelo and later murdered him. The assassination made up Mola’s and the other army general’s minds over whether to launch the coup and on the 17th July 1936, just five days later the coup was launched in Morocco. The assassination of Sotelo was partially responsible for the outbreak of civil war because it gave Mola the justification he needed to launch the coup and thus plunge Spain into civil war. Mola could now argue that the army had a......

Words: 1592 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Why Slavery Was Not the Cause of the Civil War

...During the mid- nineteenth century, the United States was being faced with a period of exponential growth; a distinct foundational social, economical and cultural difference resided between the country’s northern and southern regions. The North emerged as the industrial heart of the country’s economy, its region made up of manufacturing, developing and processing materials. The north was overall a stronger better-established economy. The South’s economy was made up of mostly agriculture based on large-scale farming. It eventually turned into an economy depended on cotton and required mass labor forces known as slaves, which was the backbone of its economy. As time went on the South began to feel more and more greatly threatened by the North. The South began to become dismayed with the lack of acknowledgement concerning federal control over state rights. Many southern states felt that the new constitution did not fully acknowledge if at all the rights of states to act independently. This was an exponential concern with right of slavery. As America began to expand with the addition of new states from the Louisiana Purchase and the victory of the Mexican War, the fight arose between slave and non-slave state proponents. The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1854 were all based around the use or freedom of slaves in new territories causing rising tensions between the North and South. The growth of the Abolition movement twisted the......

Words: 3475 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

To What Extent Was the Development of the Post

...To what extent was the development of the post - Stalin thaw in superpower relations between 1952 and 1962 the result of Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence? After the death of Stalin in 1953, there was a general improvement in Superpower relations and occasionally both superpowers were willing to meet and negotiate, which in turn led to a much more stable world in comparison to 1945-52 when the Soviet Union was ruled under Stalin’s oppressive regimes. Khrushchev proposed a policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ although previously proposed by Malenkov’s ‘New Course’, to which the USA responded with ‘New Look’ and ‘Flexible Response’. These changes led to the Post-Stalin thaw witnessing events such as the Geneva Summit and Khrushchev's visit to US. Peaceful coexistence was a hesitant move towards better dialogue between the two superpowers. Khrushchev accepted the Marxist belief that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, and peaceful coexistence was the best way of conducting relations in the meantime. The fact that by 1949 the division of Europe into two camps, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, had been established and consolidated gave relations between East and West a degree of stability. The Iron Curtain was now a defined line marker the border of recognised spheres of influence, with their positions secure, the superpowers were more willing to attempt negotiation resulting in the thaw. Peaceful coexistence had many successes, including the armistice concluded in Korea,......

Words: 1213 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Trotsky

...Like most revolutions, the Russian Revolution was against economic oppression. Russia came into the 20th century as an extremely oppressed country that was ruled by the Czars. Through acts of “terrorism” and rebellion a small group of revolutionaries overthrew the Czars, which resulted in a state of anarchy and turmoil. The Bolshevik Party of Lenin masterminded the Bolshevik take-over of power in Russia in 1917, and was the architect and first head of the USSR. History, nonetheless, as history 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......

Words: 3069 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

To What Extent Was the Alliance System to Blame for the Outbreak of War in 1914?

...To what extent was the alliance system to blame for the outbreak of war in 1914? The alliance system is an important factor in the outbreak of war in 1914, however it is only one of the causes of the First Word War and many other factors led to the war. These included militarism and nationalism. However the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the most immediate cause. The alliance system in Europe linked countries together in larger groups. Germany’s alliance with Austria- Hungary was responsible for turning the war into a global crisis instead of a local one. Germany pledged to support Austria unconditionally in Austria’s punishment to Serbia for the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Russia sent out a partial mobilization when they heard their ally ( Serbia ) was under threat. This triggered responsive mobilizations against Russia from Austria and Germany. France’s alliance with Russia was then brought into the war. Germanys war plan “The Schlieffen plan” was constructed around the idea that a war with France would mean a war with Russia and vice versa. However Britain debated about entering the war when its ally ( France ) was threatened. They finally decided to join in when Belgian were violated by Germany. Imperialism can also be seen as a cause for the first world war. One example of this would be the Second Moroccan Crisis of 1911. France had sent in troops to Morocco in order to help the Sultans government, however, Germany saw this as...

Words: 934 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Civil War and What It Meant to Be Civilized

...During the period of 1861-1865 that is commonly known as the Civil War, both the northern and the confederate states exhibited variegated forms of what it means to be civilized. At the bottom of it, the Civil War exhibited the most bloodshed on American soil at a singular point in time. For this reason it must be stated that both The Union and The Confederates both acted out bloodthirsty and carnal impulses. The difference that was displayed was that the liberalism and regard for expanded civil rights that was the basis for The Union’s war stance was countered by a stalwart reactionary ideological platform that The Confederacy clung to. Essentially, civility was at an all-time low during the bloodshed of the Civil war. Over 500,000 lives were claimed, however the etiquette and ideological platforms of both sides proved to be The old world charm of the South was encapsulated by John Mosby and his revenge against a Union trooper killing a young child in front of the child’s mother. Mosby exclaimed that revenge was not a primary, or even a secondary motivation. He honestly believed that he had to kill in order to stop the killing (Civil War Times, 31). This etiquette and honor displayed during the bloodshed was in contradistinction to the crass and needless killing committed by the Union soldier. This shows how oftentimes ideologies can mask the deeper, truer feelings......

Words: 3276 - Pages: 14

Free Essay

To What Extent Was Khruschev Successful in the Destalinisation Policy

...successful was Khrushchev’s policy of destalinization Destalinization was a political reform launched by Soviet Communist Party First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress, otherwise known as the secret speech. The main components of the reforms were changing or removing prominent institutions that had helped Stalin remain in power; the Stalinist political system, political party members that had supported him (beginning with the arrest and subsequent execution of political rival Lavrentiy Beria) and the removal of the Gulag labour camp system. Khrushchev was desperate to present himself as a reformer, completely breaking away from the reliance of ‘fear into submission’ tactics of the Stalinist era, by presenting himself as a ‘man of the people’. He wished to lessen the gap between the soviet leadership and the people, whilst undermining his predecessors’ dictatorship rule. It has been argued that his attempt to end the use of terror both in political and public life and the reintegration of those who had fallen victim to said terror, was one of the successes of the destalinization policy. This included the released of five million prisoners from labour camps. A total of eight million prisoners had been released by the end of 1956. Shortly after, in 1961, Khrushchev initiated a campaign to rename cities that previously honoured Stalin; Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd. Stalin’s persona was publicly attacked; most importantly in destroying his image,......

Words: 785 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

How Far Do You Agree That Trotsky’s Leadership of the Red Army Was Responsible for the Survival of the Bolshevik Government? (30 Marks)

...How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? (30 marks) There were many factors that contributed to the survival of the Bolshevik Government, ranging from Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army to the failings of the Bolsheviks’ rivals for power. This essay shows that the main reason for the Bolsheviks’ continued survival through the period was not Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army, but the opposition’s mistakes and failings. This will be demonstrated by analysing the key factors leading to the survival of the Bolshevik Government: Trotsky’s leadership; Lenin’s leadership; The Bolsheviks’ geographical advantage; and finally the Bolsheviks’ enemies’ misunderstandings. The first key factor that contributed to the Bolshevik Governments’ survival was Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army. Trotsky created the Red Army from nothing and by 1919 it contained roughly 400,000 troops rising to 5 million troops by 1921. The Red Army outnumbered all opposition and when directed effectively by Trotsky they were easily able to crush any opposition. Furthermore, all enemy attacks came at different times and so could be put down individually and therefore more easily. Another way that Trotsky showed his good leadership qualities was through his forward thinking: for example, many of the troops in the Red Army were inexperienced and so Trotsky “recruited” officers from the Tsar’s army and kept them in...

Words: 1461 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

To What Extent Was the Impact of the First World War Responsible for the Downfall of Tsarism in March 1917?

...To what extent was the impact of the First World War responsible for the downfall of Tsarism in March 1917? In March 1917, Nicholas II abdicated and brought Tsarist’s three hundred year reign to an end. The issue of the Tsar’s downfall divides historians with two different viewpoints. The first perspective is that Russia was making progress, however it was solely undermined by the First World War in which the war caused massive losses, poor leadership and unloyality of the troops. The alternative view is that long term social, economic and political factors already existed because of the challenges of modernising the country. Together these problems contributed to the Tsar’s inability to maintain monarchy and support of civilians and led to the downfall of Tsarism. The first reason for the First World War being responsible for the downfall of Tsarism is that Russia suffered massive defeats very early on. The Tsar believed they could win the war against Germany really easily. However, they did not realise how powerful the German army was. In the Battle of Tattenburg tens of thousands were dead or wounded and within a week at the Battle of Masurian Lakes the Russian army lost another 100,000 soldiers. Morale decreased visibly, worsened not only by the shortages or bad transport system but by bad news from the front. Despite the occasional victories, Russia emerged in the war as ill-equipped, with the soldiers under-fed. The morale was so low that there were Russian......

Words: 1694 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

To What Extent Were the White’s Weaknesses Responsible for Red Victory in the Russian Civil War, 1918-21?

...To a large extent, the Red victory in the Russian Civil War was due to the White’s weaknesses. However, a combination of these weaknesses together with the Bolsheviks own strengths were responsible for the defeat of the Whites, in terms of resources and geographical location, political support, leadership and foreign help. In terms of geography and resources, the Reds had control over the more densely populated areas in western Russia. That area was populated by some 70 million people, in comparison to the 20 million in the Whites controlled areas, which meant they could recruit more people. This gave the Reds a huge numerical advantage, White generals only had between 250,000 men at their disposal whereas the Red army counted with 400,000 men in 1919 and over 5 million by the end if the Civil War. It was a central area that was easier to defend and in which to keep internal lines of communication. In contrast, the White armies were physically separated, which made the coordination of their military actions more difficult. For example, in 1919 General Denikin’s forces were defeated in the south-east region of Russia due to his inability to organize a strategic plan with Kolchak, which would have proved a great danger for the Bolsheviks. Another key advantage was that the areas under Red control included the industrial centres of the country, Petrograd and Moscow, which meant they had the capacity to manufacture armaments and not be dependent on foreign assistance, as the......

Words: 945 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

To What Extent Was the Civil War a War over Slavery

...“To what extent was the Civil War a war over slavery?”    In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery  as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country.  Robert E. Lee      620 thousand of ​ soldiers lost their lives,​  war cost 5 billion dollars, large  destructions, especially in the South. 4 million freed slaves by Thirteenth Amendment to  the United States Constitution. Brother shot to brother.  Slavery in America has its origins from the beginning of United States existence.  In nineteenth century U.S could be called as an young country with wide, noble ideas of  independence, equality and economic development; with their own basic law, the first  constitution in the World. Regarding to mentioned words; why was it possible to  America to start Civil War?  The case of America was multi­dimensional. United States Constitution did not explain  laws and behaviour towards black­skinned slaves clearly. The South States of America  were place where slavery flourished. Hosts of latifundiums needed ''hands to work'' –  slaves were the cheapest solution because hosts after buying a slave with reasonabe  price had to care only of the fact that their slave is still alive; they provided slaves with  hunger food rations and water – it was a cheap labour which made large land holdings  profitable. In general opinion this unhumanitarian situation was the reason of Civil War.  But...  Was it that clear?......

Words: 1544 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

How Far Was the Labour Party Election Victory in 1945 Due to the Changes in Social Attitudes During the Second World War?

...The Labour party election victory in 1945 was due to changes in social attitudes during the Second World War more than other factors. It produced different political views to that of those before WW2 such as equality and the level of state intervention. This benefitted the Labour party’s electoral victory greatly and outweighs the other reasons that contributed to the victory. Firstly, the social attitudes changed in regard to the significant leftward shift in public opinion and the amount of state intervention that the public wanted. The success of total war showed the public that state involvement was a positive thing and could actually benefit the public. The massive extension of State control, regulation and planning seemed to have led to full employment and a sense of working together for a common goal. Many of the poor population was benefitting from the wartime rationing systems and demand for materials and soldiers as it gave them a substantial meal than what they were used to and they were also able to have a secure income in the household instead of scraping by. The rationing system, along with the conscription of both men and women and the raising of taxes created a feeling of equal involvement and fairness in society, which reflected Labour’s socialist characteristics. The public felt that if these methods were so successful and produced so much positivity in Britain at wartime then they should also be applied in times of peace. Labour’s nationalisation plan...

Words: 969 - Pages: 4