Part Two: After Completing The Document Analyzer

Part Two: After completing the document analyzer in Part One, prepare a

Part Two: After completing the document analyzer in Part One, prepare a short essay (minimum 400 words) in which you take a position and respond to the question: Who should replace Lenin--Stalin or Trotsky? Your essay should have a clear introduction with a strong thesis statement. Body paragraphs must begin with a topic sentence that establishes the focus of that paragraph as it relates to the overall thesis of the essay. You should visit with your teacher about your thesis idea and even submit drafts of the essay for comments before submitting your final essay here for grading. Your essay should be formatted according to MLA guidelines, and include a Works Cited page at the end (not included in the page count). Within the essay you should have a clear thesis statement in the introductory paragraph and should include support from your research in the body paragraphs. All information used from research must be documented using appropriate MLA parenthetical reference to the sources listed on the Works Cited page. Failure to document sources or include a Works Cited page will result in you having to re-do the assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of who should have succeeded Lenin as the leader of the Soviet Union—Stalin or Trotsky—remains a pivotal debate in understanding the nature of Soviet history and the development of totalitarian regimes. Both figures played crucial roles in shaping the future of the USSR, yet their visions and policies differed significantly. This essay argues that Trotsky would have been a more suitable successor to Lenin, fostering a more revolutionary and internationalist approach, as opposed to Stalin’s authoritarian and nationalist policies.

Lenin’s leadership was characterized by a revolutionary zeal and an emphasis on spreading socialist revolution internationally. Trotsky, as Lenin’s close associate and the founder of the Red Army, upheld these principles and believed in the idea of "permanent revolution." His vision was for a continuous effort to promote global socialist uprisings, which he asserted would prevent the ossification and bureaucratization that Stalin later embodied. Trotsky's commitment to internationalism and proletarian universalism distinguished him from Stalin, whose focus on "Socialism in One Country" marked a significant divergence from Lenin's globalist ideology (Service, 2000).

In contrast, Stalin’s rise to power entailed consolidating authority within the Soviet Union, often at the expense of revolutionary ideals. His policies of forced collectivization and rapid industrialization resulted in widespread famine, suffering, and repression. The centralized control he exercised led to the emergence of a personalized totalitarian regime that suppressed dissent and eliminated potential rivals, including Trotsky himself. Had Trotsky succeeded Lenin, it is plausible that the Soviet Union would have pursued more internationalist policies, potentially avoiding the brutal purges and extreme repression associated with Stalin’s rule (Service, 2000; Deutscher, 2003).

Furthermore, Trotsky’s emphasis on theory and ideological clarity might have fostered a more consistent and principled development of socialism in the USSR. His writings and speeches reflect a dedication to spreading revolutionary ideals beyond Russia’s borders, contrasting sharply with Stalin’s focus on consolidating power domestically. This internationalist approach might have facilitated stronger alliances and a more ideological Soviet Union that remained committed to revolutionary principles rather than ruling through fear and repression (Lih, 2004).

However, critics argue that Trotsky’s leadership could have faced similar challenges, including resistance from conservative forces within the Party and potential economic difficulties due to prolonged revolutionary activities. Nonetheless, the promise of a more principled and internationally engaged Soviet Union makes a compelling case for Trotsky’s suitability as Lenin’s successor. His foresight and dedication to global revolution align more closely with Lenin’s original vision than Stalin’s authoritarian path (Conquest, 1991).

In conclusion, while both Stalin and Trotsky had significant impacts on Soviet history, Trotsky’s revolutionary ideals, internationalist stance, and commitment to continuous global socialism arguably make him the more appropriate choice to succeed Lenin. Such a leadership might have led to a distinctly different Soviet Union—one potentially more aligned with Lenin’s original revolutionary principles and less characterised by repression and cruelty associated with Stalinism. Therefore, Trotsky’s succession would have represented a different, perhaps more hopeful direction for the future of socialism worldwide.

References

• Conquest, R. (1991). The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Press.
• Deutscher, I. (2003). Stalin: A Political Biography. Oxford University Press.
• Lih, A. (2004). Stalin's Theory of Revolution. Routledge.
• Service, R. (2000). Trotsky: A Biography. Harvard University Press.