A Comparison of Lenin and Trotsky’s Responses to the Pogroms
The continuation of the violent anti-Jewish riots that had plagued the Russian Empire in post-Revolutionary Russia forced the response of prominent communist party leaders. Both Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik party and head of the Soviet state, and Leon Trotsky, leader of the Bolshevik army, formulated responses that attempted to promote the ideas of communism through condemnation of the attacks. However, the content of these responses varies in a way that reflects both their differing backgrounds with communism, and reveals their distinct purposes in responding to anti-Jewish violence. A comparison of Lenin’s speech “On Anti-Jewish Pogroms” and Trotsky’s “A Word to the Ukrainian
…show more content…
Soldiers Misled by Bandits” illuminates these differences. In both responses, Lenin and Trotsky adamantly agree that the origins of anti-Jewish riots, known in Russia as pogroms, lie outside of the communist order.
Lenin’s speech, recorded on a gramophone in March of 1919, claims that “the tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews.” Lenin states that anyone not affiliated with the communist party, such as imperialists and capitalists, is an exploiter and persecutor of Jews. Lenin distances himself and his party from the anti-semitic values and violence of the pogroms in an attempt to gain the favor of sympathizing Jews.
Trotsky also dissociates the communist party from the attacks by blaming them on power-hungry Ukrainian warlords, called atamans. His response, written in August of 1919, states that “there are many bands operating in the Ukraine at present. All of them are led by atamans… These bands are making life impossible in the Ukraine.” His response relates to Lenin’s in that it pushes responsibility on the enemies of the communist party. However, instead of multiple perpetrators, Trotsky’s military background causes him to place all blame on his then-current military opponents, the Ukrainian
atamans. Trotsky’s response also differs in that it does not make any specific references to the anti-semitic nature of the violence, nor does he acknowledge the Jews as a race or a national minority. His writings do not even mention the Jews by name, but instead only talk of violence in the area. Trotsky calls to all of the victims of the pogroms, regardless of race, and says that the atamans and their collaborators, “plunder the peasants, commit pogroms in the towns, destroy railway lines, derail trains, and slaughter hundreds of thousands of absolutely innocent people – old men, women and children.” This lack of national recognition reflects Trotsky’s background as a former Jew, who rejected his nationality to conform to the communist ideology of the elimination of racial differentiation. His message calls to all of the exploited and the persecuted to join in his ideals, and shows that he will not undermine his values in order to pander to the Jews for their support. Trotsky’s wants only to expand the protections of the communist state to those that truly follow their ideals. Lenin’s speech takes a more political stance on the issue of the pogroms. In an attempt to draw the Jews specifically toward the communist cause, Lenin speaks directly of anti-semitism as a problem of the capitalist order, and defends the Jews individually as a race. He says, “It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries.” Here he speaks directly of Jews as a nationality to be protected and respected. Even though Lenin believed strongly in the communist ideology of erasing all national boundaries and creating one Soviet state, he used this language to further his political purpose. Lenin’s background as a politician, and his role as the leader of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state, caused him to want to expand the power of the communist party and include everyone, by whatever means necessary. He allows the mention of Jews as a nationality and speaks directly of their suffering to recruit them into the Soviet order, and to expand the power of the communist party. Both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky responded to the violence against Jews in the pogroms with politically charged statements that were meant to further the spread of communism and its influence over the Jewish people. However, despite their differences in background and in response, both responses ultimately agree that the only solution to the violence of the pogroms is the establishment of an international communist state. Lenin’s speech ends with him saying, “Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital,” a celebration of the communist message and a call to arms of all of the exploited, regardless of nationality. Trotsky ends his writings with, “Long live the power of the workers and peasants in a free and happy Ukraine!”, a similar celebration of the power and purpose of the communists. Though their responses differed, the ultimate purpose of their responses was to promote the growth of communism, and it is to that message that every communist can agree.
The Seizure of Power by the Bolsheviks in 1917. How did the Bolsheviks seize power of the Russian Empire in 1917? They were able to do this as a result of taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Through such decisions as disbanding the army and siding with the majority. the peasants, through such promises as land, food, equality and peace.
Joseph Stalin said, “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don 't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”. Stalin was a dictator of the USSR from 1929 to 1953. Under his dictatorship, the Soviet Union began to transform from a poor economy to an industrial and military based one. While still a teen, Stalin secretly read Karl Marx 's book the “Communist Manifesto”, and became more interested in his teachings. When Stalin gained power, he ruled his nations using terror and fear, eliminating those who did not comply with his governance.
As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1].
I know you 've heard of a terrible and cruel dictator taking over and killing anything and everything that gets in his way of what he wants, but you might not have heard of this tragic and historic event. The Great Terror, also known as The Blood Purges of 1936 to 1938, was a series of horrific and barbaric assassinations based on the actions of Joseph Stalin. The purges began in October 1936 and ended in November 1938. The Great Terror occurred in the Soviet Union, but mainly in the city of Moscow. The purges were killings that were directly towards government officials, political leaders, leading cultural figures, followers of those figures, and even civilians. The many men and women Joseph Stalin killed or had killed were because they either
The Communist Party was one of the main sections in Soviet society that was impacted profoundly by Stalin’s terror. In 1935, the assassination of Sergei Kirov, a faithful Communist and Bolshevik party member that had certain popularity, threatening Stalin’s consolidation of power, initiated The Great Purge. His death, triggering three important, widely publicised ‘show trials’ in Moscow, ultimately encouraged the climate of terror during the Great Purge. Bolsheviks Zinoviev, Kamenev and their associates were accused of conspiring against Stalin and the government, with each confessing to their supposed crimes, which were then broadcast around the world. It was later discovered that these confessions were forced after long months of psychological abuse and cruel acts of torture. As Stalin...
One of the worst nations to suffer from Stalin’s great purges in the Soviet Union was not the Russians. Fascist sought to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity which individuals are bound together by ancestry, culture, and blood which are all super personal connections. However, even though Stalin did enforce Russia of the Soviet Union the main enemies of his were the political opponents and their followers. His most ferocious acts of terror “The Great Purges” took place between 1934 and 1939.
Benjamin Harshav’s “Language in Time of Revolution” teaches the reader that social factors, historical factors, willpower, and accidents of history brought back and revived the Hebrew and Yiddish language. This was important because it created the base for a new, secular Jewish society and culture to emerge again with their own language and a new social identity. This new social identity meant that there was a nationalistic movement toward having a common language, literature, and cultural heritage. However, the reason why the Hebrew and Yiddish language lagged in the first place was due to Nazism and Stalinism. These two totalitarian empires wiped out the Yiddish culture since the Jews were not the majority population in places such as Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Since only one language of government and education was imposed on various ethnic groups, it is not a surprise that the Yiddish language became irrelevant. Stalinists argued that Jews can’t be a nation because they do not have a territory and a common language; the Zionists, however, tried to help by enforcing the Hebrew language on immigrants from all countries and languages because they believed in “national power and sovereignty rather than mere cultural autonomy.”
There are many people who have lived through and within the Bolshevik Revolution, so there are a multitudinous variety of perspectives, thoughts, and insights about the revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution is known for many things; some say that the revolution helped women become free of control, and others proclaim that it did nothing but continue to hold women captive of their desired rights. The Bolshevik Revolution article states the side of a history professor Richard Stites, who argues yes the revolution benefited the women whilst the other side is declared no the revolution did no justice for women at all, which was argued by a Russian scholar, Lesly A. Rimmel. The opposing arguments both create an effective view on the revolution, and
I recollect as a child how I cherished the way my mom took care of me and made all my executive decisions. I recall getting excited about my weekly allowances and about her picking out my clothes for school. However, when I became a teenager I wanted my independence. I know longer wanted her to buy my clothing and I wanted to financially support myself by getting a job. I was so tired of her telling me what to do and how to do it that I revolted. At first it was difficult trying to establish independence in my mother's house, but after a while it seemed as if I had won the battle. Unbeknownst to me that battle would be short-lived and ultimately my mom won the war. Basically, I had constructed my own crazy revolution against my mother. You see a revolution is “a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed .Activity or movement designed to affect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation (Webster Dictionary).”One revolution that is said to have inspired communism was the Russian Revolutions of 1917.
Did the Jews of Germany do enough to prevent their wholesale massacre by the Nazis? Should they have resisted earlier and to a greater degree? Should the Jews in Western countries acted even when Jews within Germany did not? In 1933, there were several different responses to Germany's increasingly anti-Jewish tendencies. Then, on the eve of destruction, before the Nazis had fully planned for their extermination, the German Jews had a chance to affect Germany and their own lives. I have chosen a few of the German Jewish responses to examine in this essay.
Norton, James. The Holocaust: Jews, Germany, and the National Socialists. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2009. Print.
that his real aim was not to be in power but to lead the world to a
On March 3, 1918 Russia lost 1/3 of its fertile farm lands, 1/3 of its
Russian Revolution Essay. Throughout history, there have been many revolutions between the population of a country and its government. People always wanted change, usually in the directions of freedom, peace and equality and in the lead up to the 1917 Russian revolution; there were a variety of social, political and economic situations that all played their part. In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, the Russo-Turkish war, the Russo-Japanese war and the First World War.