To Prevent "October" Who Do You Kill--Lenin or Trotsky?

Let's say that it is early in 1917--the February Revolution has just succeeded in Russia, and Lenin is still in exile in Switzerland, Trotsky in New York. Your goal is to prevent February from being followed by a far-left insurrection in October--what the Bolsheviks would call the Great October Socialist Revolution (and their opponents would call the Bolshevik coup). To prevent this, you are able to kill one--and only one--person. Who do you kill--Lenin or Trotsky?

Most people would probably say that Lenin was the more important, and to some extent Trotsky's own writings (in his diary in exile) support this view:

"Had I not been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place -- on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution : the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring -- of this I have not the slightest doubt ! If Lenin had not been in Petersburg, I doubt whether I could have managed to overcome the resistance of the Bolshevik leaders. The struggle with "Trotskyism" (i.e. with the proletarian revolution) would have commenced in May 1917, and the outcome would have been in question. But I repeat, granted the presence of Lenin the October Revolution would have been victorious anyway." https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/frank/works/diary.htm

There is however IMO a case to be made that Trotsky is being unduly modest here (perhaps modesty is not the right word; after all, even in a private diary, Trotsky always wants to rebut Stalin's allegation that Trotsky was not a loyal Leninist); that he was *more* indispensable than Lenin for the success of October; and that he could have led a successful insurrection even without Lenin, whereas the converse was not necessarily true. Before arguing this position, I will summarize the traditional argument that Lenin was more important:

After the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks--or at least *Pravda* under the editorship of Kamenev and Stalin--were advocating conditional support of the Provisional Government, and even a merger of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks, or at least with Martov's Menshevik "Internationalists." It took Lenin's return and his "April Theses" to reorient the party toward opposition to the PG and support for "all power to the soviets." (Yes, some "left" Bolsheviks like Molotov had already been criticizing the Stalin-Kamenev line, but they hardly had Lenin's authority.) Even later in the year, the Bolsheviks were still divided and confused on the question of insurrection; many of them thought that a peaceful transfer of power to the soviets, and a genuine multiparty socialist coalition government, were both possible and desirable. Zinoviev and Kamenev even leaked word of the planned Bolshevik coup and of their own opposition to it to the non-Bolshevik press. Only through Lenin could the party arrive at the decision for insurrection and a Bolshevik-dominated government (the few Left SRs were basically window dressing). Trotsky had for so long been a non-Bolshevik that the party would not listen to him had Lenin not decreed that their past differences should be forgotten.

Here is my counter-case for the greater importance of Trotsky:

First: Even without Lenin and the "April Theses" the Stalin-Kamenev line in favor of "conditional support" of the Provisional Government would not have lasted long. First of all, it was by no means unanimously approved by the Bolsheviks--Molotov in particular opposed it. Second, even the "moderate" Bolsheviks did not expect the Provisional Government to last for long. Stalin, for example, warned against a premature attempt to seize power, but added "we must bide our time" until the Provisional Government discredits itself, and when that time comes "The only organ capable of taking power is the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on an all-Russian scale." Quoted in Robert M. Slusser, *Stalin in October: The Man Who Missed the Revolution* (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press 1987), p. 44. Moreover, after the Mensheviks had retracted their support for a Bolshevik-inspired motion on foreign policy, Kamenev warned that "Our task is to show that the only organ deserving our support is the Soviet of workers' deputies." Robert Service, *Lenin: A Political Life, Volume 2: Worlds in Collision* (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press 1991) pp. 163-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=cti-DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA164 Third, the increasing unpopularity of the PG would greatly strengthen the hands of the Left Bolsheviks against any who would still counsel moderation. In particular, it would have to occur to the Bolsheviks that if they would continue to take a moderate line thwy would lose working-class and soldiers' support to the Anarchists and other far-left groups.

Second: One should not overrate the importance of the Bolshevik party *as such* in 1917. Its strength came from the fact that in the most important areas--above all Petrograd--there were increasingly radicalized soldiers who were sick of the war and the PG and would follow anyone who would promise land, bread, and especially peace. Party labels meant little to most of them, and any polemics Lenin had had with Trotsky would be irrelevant ancient history. If the Bolsheviks would continue to follow a conciliatory line, it is quite conceivable that the left wing of the party would break away and combine with Trotsky's followers among the Mezhraiontsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhraiontsy to form a new party. Whatever the new party's name (perhaps "the Communist Party"--a name which the Bolsheviks had not yet adopted) there is no reason to think that such a party could not win an eventual majority in the Petrograd Soviet, and seize power. (Indeed, it might have an easier time carrying out an insurrection than the Bolshevik party of OTL, since it would not be hampered by Kamenev's and Zinoviev's opposition.)

Third: Trotsky had a better understanding than Lenin of the *tactics* of insurrection. Lenin indeed was sometimes inept in this respect and it is not an exaggeration to say that the Bolsheviks came to power largely by ignoring his tactical ideas. First of all, he wanted to start the insurrection in September, when it would probably have been premature. This is part of a pattern of impatience, of not understanding as much as Trotsky did the importance of portraying the insurrection as a *defensive* move--against the planned transfer of the Petrograd garrison, against the alleged Kerensky-Kornilovist plot against the Second Congress of Soviets, etc. Second, he wanted to start it not in Petrograd but in Moscow, claiming that in that event success would be assured and might even be bloodless. In fact of course, taking over Moscow (even *after* the insurrection had won in Petrograd) was *much* bloodier and more difficult than overthrowing the PG in Petrograd. Finally, Trotsky understood that the way to make an insurrection was not to send "the masses" into the streets as in the July Days but to use small groups of specialists to take control of the strategic points. I am not sure how well Lenin understood this.

Trotsky in *The Lessons of October* tries to excuse Lenin's tactical errors by saying that they were largely the product of his not being on the scene in Petrograd until very late: "Lenin's counsel to begin the insurrection in Moscow, where, on his assumptions, we could gain a bloodless victory, flowed precisely from the fact that in his underground refuge he had no opportunity to assess the radical turn that took place.." etc. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lessons/ch7.htm Still, in
the *History of the Russian Revolution* Trotsky does not hesitate to call attention to Lenin's errors:

"The facts speak otherwise. Lenin insisted upon raising in insurrection in the days of the Democratic Conference. Not one member of the Central Committee supported him. A week later Lenin proposed to Smilga to organise an insurrectionary headquarters in Finland, and strike a blow at the government from that point with the sailors. Again ten days later he insisted that the Northern Congress become the starting point of an insurrection. Nobody at the Congress supported this proposal. At the end of September Lenin considered the postponement of the insurrection for three weeks, until the Congress of Soviets, fatal. Nevertheless the insurrection, deferred to the eve of the Congress, was accomplished while the Congress was in session. Lenin proposed that the struggle begin in Moscow, assuming that there it would be resolved without a fight. As a matter of fact, the insurrection in Moscow, notwithstanding the preceding victory in Petrograd, lasted eight days and cost many victims.

"Lenin was no automaton of infallible decisions. He was “only” a man of genius, and nothing human was alien to him, therein included the capacity to make mistakes..."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch49.htm

For all these reasons, I think there is at least a case to be made that the October Revolution/Coup is more likely to succeed in a "Trotsky without Lenin" world than in a "Lenin without Trotsky" world. I am not by any means certain of this; after all, as Trotsky notes, it was not just him but the Central Committee that rejected some of Lenin's crazier ideas. Furthermore, see http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/2894c486f4d981f7 where I argue that "Even if you accept Trotsky's later claim that he was trying to goad the government into a pre-Congress attack all along (and in that case, such things as the MRC's acceptance of the government's ultimatum seem curious), his strategy involved the *risk* that (should the government refuse to let itself be provoked) power might not be seized until after the Congress met." And of course there is the question of whether a far-left government led by Trotsky would be as likely to *survive* as one led by Lenin--but that is another matter.
 
My understanding is that Lenin encouraged the Bolshevics to take the risk of launching a coup de tat (aka Great October Revolutions)
 
You don't kill either because it's not that simplistic. The October Revolution barring Bolshevik agitation, happen when Lenin was forced to the wilderness and Trotsky in jail if I remember correctly, the only reason the October Revolution happened is because the Kornilov affair saw Kerensky free the Bolsheviks and give them weapons. You need to have the provisional government get it their damn heads that a change of leadership won't fix the problems with the Russian Army, and try to play it smarter.

If we have to go buy this set logic, you're better off killing Lenin than Trotsky as now you have a struggle for power, on who is going to be the new leader of the Bolsheviks and Trotsky, was far from liked by some military competency aside.
 
My understanding is that Lenin encouraged the Bolshevics to take the risk of launching a coup de tat (aka Great October Revolutions)

No one denies that. The question is whether he would have gotten the *tactics* of insurrection right without Trotsky.
 
You don't kill either because it's not that simplistic.

Oh, I agree with that. My question is *if* all you could do was to kill either Lenin or Trotsky (rather than, say, persuade some of their opponents to adopt more sensible policies...) which one would you kill *if* your sole goal was simply to prevent the October insurrection.
 
If we have to go buy this set logic, you're better off killing Lenin than Trotsky as now you have a struggle for power, on who is going to be the new leader of the Bolsheviks and Trotsky, was far from liked by some military competency aside.

Yeah, I would kill Lenin for that reason alone. Kill the leader and the rest will fight for power, particularly that bunch.
 
What if both of them die?

Chaos I can see a number of scenarios and this is from best to worst for the Bolshivikes that I can come up with
1) They rally behind a leader quickly who quickly appoints someone to take Trotsky's place. This is very unlikely but even if pulled off will take at least weeks for the new leader to "learn the ropes" of new leadership
2) as #1 but not nearly as quickly. There is infighting for a number of months and it takes even longer for the new leader to be secure in power due to bad feelings between members.
3) The Bolsheviks fracture. They may be able to reunite eventually but it will take months if not years to pull off, if ever.
4) The Bolsheviks fracture and they send assassins after each other. In this case they almost certainly kill themselves off.
 
If only Trotsky survives, there's no one to pull it all together after the October seizure of power. Trotsky was good at oratory, writing books, and organizing a glorified coup; the view of him as some kind of military genius in the Civil War has never been proven. But what IS known is that Trotsky was terrible as a politician and knew nothing about building majority support within the party, a patronage machine, etc. The Bolsheviks fight among themselves, Stalin never gets time to put himself in place, and the Whites defeat the Bolsheviks in the Civil War. Probably, without the threat of communism, Hitler never comes to power in Germany.
 
You could kill either and the result would be the same. Both Trotsky and Lenin were necessary for the success of the Russian Revolution. Killing Lenin would make him a martyr for the Soviet cause, but there would be no enigmatic leader to attract others to the cause or hold the various factions of the revolution together. There would be no figurehead, and the revolution would not have the unity necessary to survive the Civil War, or perhaps even succeed.

Trotsky, on the other hand, coordinated the actual coup element of the revolution, and, as Commissar for War during the Russian Civil War, whipped the Red Army into fighting shape. Trotsky's absence would be felt, as there would be nobody to lead the revolution in Petrograd/St. Petersburg. That's not to say the revolution would fail necessarily - but, even if it were to succeed, who would lead the Red Army? Trotsky was a respected figure of the Civil War, and without his leadership of the Red Army in the war, it's entirely possible the Bolsheviks would have lost. So kill whoever, the result would be the same. The Revolution was a special set of circumstances, and without Lenin and Trotsky together there is no way it would have played out the same.
 
I would go for Lenin, Trotsky never had the sort of support Lenin had to lead the political revolution. Without the October Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power in a more or less unified way, Trotsky never gets to use his skills in putting the Red Army together to win the civil war. An important point is that Trotsky was a Jew - sure he was non-religious as were all Bolsheviks (at least officially) however that did not eliminate prejudice against Trotsky among the Bolsheviks, and among the more general population the idea of rallying behind a Jew, even a non-religious one would be a leap most would not be willing to take. With the Bolsheviks not united behind Lenin, the Mensheviks will come out on top, at least for the moment.
 
Or eliminate both of them, along with Stalin, Martov, Gorky, Luxemburg, Tyrkova, Bogdanov, Zinoviev, Danishevsky, Pokrovsky, Nogin, Kamenev, Plekhanov, Martov, Axelrod, Deutsch, Dan and most of the rest of the RSDLP leadership (except Dzerzhinsky). One bomb (or gas explosion) at the right place....
A very different world.

This is a ridiculous hodgepodge of names. You want to kill Stalin, be my guest. But Martov and Axelrod had broken their alliance with Lenin in 1903, and had never been his followers. They were part of a separate party, the Mensheviks, aligned with the Provisional Government. Martov was expelled from Russia by Lenin. As to Axelrod, after leaving Russia after the Bolshevik victory, which he "called a 'historical crime without parallel in modern history', he toured the world rallying socialist opposition to the Bolsheviks." Rosa Luxemburg was a German revolutionary leader (although born and raised in Poland) who was murdered in 1919 by the Freikorps only days after participating in the founding of the German communist party; she wrote an early and prophetic critique of the Leninist one-party state that was published after her death. Plekhanov was not a supporter of Lenin or of the Bolsheviks, although certainly a Marxist in his own way; according to Wikipedia, during the period after the February revolution he "lent support to the idea that Lenin was a 'German agent' and urged the Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky to take severe repressive measures against the Bolshevik organization to halt its political machinations." He left Russia after the October revolution and died in Finland in 1918. He happens to have been a great historian of ideas and literary critic; assassinating him would have been an abhorrent crime. The great novelist Gorky supported the Bolshevik revolution but then wrote:

"Lenin and his associates...consider it possible to commit all kinds of crimes ...the abolition of free speech and senseless arrests...." Gorky termed Lenin "a cold-blooded trickster who spares neither the honor nor the life of the proletariat." (from his Wikipedia bio)

Gorky left Russia for about a decade, then returned and made an uneasy peace with the regime; it is widely believed he was poisoned to death (1936) on orders from Stalin. To kill Gorky in the bombing also would have been abhorrent. The same goes for Bogdanov, a scientist, science-fiction writer and dissident Marxist despised by Lenin. According to Wikipedia, Bogdanov (d. 1928) had been expelled from the Bolshevik Party in 1909 and refused offers to rejoin it after the October Revolution, even denouncing the regime as arbitrary and despotic. He accepted a position as academician but continued to advocate unorthodox ideas and was subjected to pressure for it.

It sounds like the author of the elimination list above just wants to have killed all Marxists of that period, whether communist or not...but why would he except from the bomb or "gas explosion" the brutal Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Bolshevik secret police (and at one point the jailer and interrogator of Bogdanov)?
 
Last edited:
Top