Question by cruzazul_chelito_100: Why was Lenin’s leadership crucial to the success of the Russian Revolution?
Why was Lenin’s leadership crucial to the success of the Russian Revolution?
Answers and Views:
Answer by gatita_63109
Not long after the Bolsheviks had seized power in 1917, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin filled out a bureaucratic questionnaire. For occupation, he wrote “man of letters.” So it was that a son of the Russian intelligentsia, a radical straight from the pages of Dostoyevsky’s novel The Possessed, became the author of mass terror and the first concentration camps ever built on the European Continent.
Lenin was the initiator of the central drama — the tragedy — of our era, the rise of totalitarian states. A bookish man with a scholar’s habits and a general’s tactical instincts, Lenin introduced to the 20th century the practice of taking an all-embracing ideology and imposing it on an entire society rapidly and mercilessly; he created a regime that erased politics, erased historical memory, erased opposition. In his short career in power, from 1917 until his death in 1924, Lenin created a model not merely for his successor, Stalin, but for Mao, for Hitler, for Pol Pot.
Before he became the general of the revolution, Lenin was its pedant, the journalist-scholar who married Marxist theory to an incisive analysis of insurrectionist tactics. His theories of what society ought to be and how that ideal must be achieved were the products of thousands of hours spent reading.
gatita_63109
Read all the answers in the comments.
Know better? Leave your own answer!
pekau says
Well, quite honestly… Lenin was an idealist, not a leader. Sure, he made some impressive speeches… but without Trotsky, he would have never had a chance to win against Provisional Gov. or win the Russian Civil War. He was successful because… he was the only leader who had realistic manpower and determination to change Russia. And quite honestly, I can see how Russians are fed up with their ongoing war and declining economy. I mean, USA would never continue any wars if they lost over 5 million men… would they?