Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Trotsky

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT: Trotsky

    Granted a little before WWII, but the more I read of him, the more I like him. Maybe worth a thread of his own, though where to put it not sure, so I'll start here. Very intelligent chap too. Thank you Stalin.

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/

    Moderator note:
    Trotsky left the USSR long before WWII. But as he made a lot for development of the Soviet Army I'll left this thread here.

    Alex AMVAS
    Last edited by amvas; 15 May 07, 01:56.
    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

  • #2
    I'd have to say I don't fall into the Trotksy fan club. I think he's probably like most leaders who has strengths and weaknesses, and as many people like him, they can bring up his strengths. Your link provides many good writings and information on him, but I think my biggest problem is that he seems not to practice what he preached. He used forced labor and terror tactics while always claiming his ideas were more acceptable.
    Here are some quotes by Trotsky and information from the below link about the Dewey Commision.
    “repression remains a necessary means of breaking the will of the opposing side.” [6]

    PRACTICE — Trotsky acted as he wrote above. He helped set up forced labor camps, revamp the czarist Cheka secret police to Bolshevik ends, instigate the Red Terror: mass executions of people based on their class origins and beliefs.
    When the sailors of the Kronstadt naval base demanded freedom of speech and of the press for workers, peasants, anarchists, and socialist parties, free elections, liberation of political prisoners, and review of the cases of all held in prisons and labor camps, Trotsky denounced the uprising as a counter-revolutionary White Guard plot, and delivered the following ultimatum to the insurgents on March 5, 1921:
    “Only those who surrender unconditionally may count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic ... I am issuing orders to prepare to quell the mutiny ... by force of arms. Responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will fall entirely upon the heads of the counter-revolutionary mutineers. This warning is final.” [8]

    http://www.geocities.com/agarap/dewey/11173.htm

    "Get three coffins ready" The Man With No Name

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sgt. Rock View Post
      Trotsky denounced the uprising as a counter-revolutionary White Guard plot, and delivered the following ultimatum to the insurgents on March 5, 1921: “Only those who surrender unconditionally may count on the mercy of the Soviet Republic... I am issuing orders to prepare to quell the mutiny... by force of arms. Responsibility for the harm that may be suffered by the peaceful population will fall entirely upon the heads of the counter-revolutionary mutineers. This warning is final.”
      You and I might have said and done the same- even discussed and agreed it- given the conditions at the time.

      My point is that he was an intelligent man working within his time parameters. I like- even admire- him.
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • #4
        Volkogonov's biography acknowledges his political and rhetorical talents, but points out a lack a military acumen. In the military realm his was more energy than depth.
        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
          Volkogonov's biography acknowledges his political and rhetorical talents, but points out a lack a military acumen. In the military realm his was more energy than depth.
          Volkogonov. I haven't read it but it would seem somewhat- err- partisan. And from a particular stable.

          As to his military abilities, I'd love for the Russians [Stalin?] (or even the Poles) themselves to chime in on this. As an outsider the campaigns of the 20s seem somewhat whirlwind and his comments on cavalry in particular given the distances involved most enlightening.

          I hope we can all agree at least a [very clever] character deserving of further study.
          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by General Staff View Post
            You and I might have said and done the same- even discussed and agreed it- given the conditions at the time.

            My point is that he was an intelligent man working within his time parameters. I like- even admire- him.

            I don't think he wasn't intelligent, but my biggest problem with many of the Trotsky fans, are many of them speak about how other leaders in the past were so repressive and didn't treat workers well, and that Trotksy was all about the worker, and not about repression. Using forced labor and his involvment in the "Red Terror", show mistreatment of the worker and repression. I believe the sailors at Kronstadt were Socialists and weren't part of a White Guard rebellion. Also, you can find items in Trotsky's past like his participation with the "Red Terror" where he used the Cheka to spread their terror. Now is Trotsky the only leader to ever have partcitipated in something like the "Red Terror", or using forced labor? No, but in my opinion many people who support Trotsky like to point out other leaders using these same types of tactics against others in the past. To be honest I'm not really an expert on Trotsky except for what I've read about Kronstadt, the Dewey Commission and the Bolshevik Revolution. I know he was assasinated in Mexico, because Stalin was paranoid about him, and the Show Trials were an attempt to get rid of those who favored Trotsky. I think the Dewey Commission seems to be a farce though.

            So I would say he is like most leaders and has strengths and weaknessess. Those who like him will point to his strengths and admire him, and those who don't like him will point to his weaknessess and point to them. You can do this for every influential leader in the past in my opinion. You like his strengths, and I tend to look at his weaknesses. That's what makes message boards great, is that there are different ways to see things.

            "Get three coffins ready" The Man With No Name

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sgt. Rock View Post
              You like his strengths, and I tend to look at his weaknesses. That's what makes message boards great, is that there are different ways to see things.
              Agreed. But I think you've also got to bear in mind the Russian character. It's hardly touchy-feely as in the West- like 'Come on Lads, let's get off the ship now in an orderly manner or we're going to have to throw you over the side.'. The sailors would have laughed us off the boat.
              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sgt. Rock View Post
                ... he (Trotksy) seems not to practice what he preached. He used forced labor and terror tactics while always claiming his ideas were more acceptable...
                so true.
                however, we must take into account the rebellious ''spirit'' of an era which produced the likes of trotsky.

                first off, trotsky - as well as hitler and stalin, for instance - was a very creative person.
                he was so creative, that his creativeness finally turned into destructiveness.
                i mean: finally he became ''creative'' at how to destroy, not construct.

                such leaders as trotsky remind me of goethe's dr.faust.
                addicted to all that's intellectual and rational,
                they distanced themselves from all that's sacred and mystical (i.e. - God), thus - allowing the devil to step in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                  Volkogonov's biography acknowledges his (trotsky's) political and rhetorical talents, but points out a lack a military acumen. In the military realm his was more energy than depth.
                  volkogonov is right.
                  trotsky was a terrorist - first of all, and - not a soldier.
                  he knew nothing about warfare.
                  he only knew how to make people sacrifice themselves for an idea.
                  but, hey - that's what is needed in the civil war!
                  whereas the white army was commanded by professional generals, colonels and officers - the red army was commanded mostly by ideologists/ex-terrorists/bolsheviks, and red army won!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by stalin View Post
                    so true.
                    however, we must take into account the rebellious ''spirit'' of an era which produced the likes of trotsky.

                    first off, trotsky - as well as hitler and stalin, for instance - was a very creative person.
                    he was so creative, that his creativeness finally turned into destructiveness.
                    i mean: finally he became ''creative'' at how to destroy, not construct.

                    such leaders as trotsky remind me of goethe's dr.faust.
                    addicted to all that's intellectual and rational,
                    they distanced themselves from all that's sacred and mystical (i.e. - God), thus - allowing the devil to step in.
                    Yes there is that Faustian 'devil's' bargain, which I'm sure Trotsky was well aware of.

                    And he was creative, though I don't think he meant to be destructive, except in the revolutionary sense that you have to tear down existing structures in order to build new ones. Remember serfdom (slavery) in Russia was still a fairly recent memory, and rather as in the American South had only morphed and not been abandoned or disappeared.

                    He was also dealing with a mindset (very much a product of serfdom), and trying to change that. Without him and his generation, Russia and indeed the world would be a very different and worse place today IMHO.
                    Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                    (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      ... there is that Faustian 'devil's' bargain, which I'm sure Trotsky was well aware of...though I don't think he meant to be destructive...Without him and his generation, Russia and indeed the world would be a very different and worse place today IMHO.
                      none of them (lenin, trotsky, hitler)* meant to be ''destructive'', actually.
                      but - as always: ''the way to misfortune is paved with good intentions''.

                      as for the world being worse or better place, had the likes of trotsky not appeared among us - i don't know...
                      what happend in a first half of 20th century is only the beginning of our civilisation's faustian trial.

                      *all + stalin - an assumed names, btw.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by stalin View Post
                        What happened in [the] first half of [the] 20th Century is only the beginning of our civilization's Faustian trial.
                        Oh, that deep, dark, Russian soul. Makes me want to dive right in. Or hang myself.
                        Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                        (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                          ... Or hang myself.
                          oh, no!
                          trotsky, for instance, would have never commited suicide.
                          he would best see how others ''kick the bucket''.

                          and - what point in suicide, btw?
                          suicide can not guarantee us against the next world not being exactly like this one,
                          since - no scientific research was ever done as to the ''life after death'' etc.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm also going to say that I'm no fan of the golden-boy of international communists. He was the uppity intellectual, the fire-eating fanatic, the ruthless killer, and the idealistic weaver of words. At least Stalin was a front line Commissar, and a man of action more than of words. I don't think it could be said that he was a demagogue like Lenin or Stalin - he truly believed in his course and was willing to do anything to destroy whatever and whoever he associated with Capitalism.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Swampwolf View Post
                              ... He (trotsky) was the uppity intellectual, the fire-eating fanatic, the ruthless killer, and the idealistic weaver of words...he truly believed in his course and was willing to do anything to destroy whatever and whoever he associated with Capitalism.
                              the ''ruthless killer'' he was, though - ''fanatic'' he wasn't.
                              and he wouldn't have been content with destruction of the capitalism alone.

                              he professed the ''permanent revolution'',
                              i.e. - destruction of all existing social/political/governmental systems.

                              because, through his own pride - trotsky got possessed by devils.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X