Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

IBHistoryinternalAssessment

:

WordCount:1999



“THEWRITTENACCOUNT”

by

RachelHo



Mrs.JudyComrie,Grade11HistoryHL18

ofMarch,2008



“TowhatextentwasTrotskyresponsibleforhisdefeatinthe1924powerstruggle?”

PartA:PlanoftheInvestigationWordCount:104



Inordertoanswer“TowhatextentwasTrotskyresponsibleforhisdefeatinthe1924powerstruggle?”,itisnecessarytoinvestigateTrotsky’sownactionsduringthepowerstrugglefollowingthedeathofLenin,alongwithotherfactorsthatmayhavecontributedtohisdownfall.TheseotherfactorsincludethepastactionsofLevTrotskythatmayhavehadrepercussionslateron;secondly,theactionsofStalin,astheothermaincontenderfortheseatofpowerLeninhadleftbehind,andotherfactorsofthetimesthatTrotskyhadnocontrolover.



PartB:SummaryofEvidenceWordCount:563



LeonTrotskyhasbeencreditedasoneofBolshevism’sprincipalleadingfigures,rankedwiththelikesofLeninandStalin.ThroughouthismanyyearsofworkingforCommunisminRussia,Trotskysecuredvariousvictoriesandachievementswhichin1924madehimacandidatefortheseatofpowerfollowingLenin’sdeath,evensofarastobedubbedthe“mainopponent”ofStalin,whointheendwouldsucceedthedeceasedLenin.

AmonghisachievementsarehisroleofleadershipinthehighlycrucialPetrogradSovietduring1905,hiselectiontotheBolshevikCentralCommitteeintheAugustof1917—amonthafterhehadjoinedtheBolsheviksunderLenin.

InthesubsequentSeptember,TrotskyassembledtheRedGuardsoftheMilitaryRevolutionaryCommittee,whichwascrucialinthevictoriousdefenseagainsttheKornilovattack.The1917RevolutionandtheBolshevikvistoryintheCivilWarof1918‐1919hasalsobeenattributedtoTrotsky’sleadershipoftheMilitaryRevolutionaryCommittee.

Despitehisachievements,thePartywasdividedintheiropinionofTrotsky;inhiswill,LeninnotedthatStalinandTrotskyrepresentedthe‘twoclasses’thatwouldcauseariftwithintheparty,andadvisedthePartytotakestepstopreventitfromhappening.

LeninwasalsoconcernedthatStalinwasholdingmorepowerthanhehadwisdomtoutilize,andsuggestedthatheberemovedhimfromhisposition—Alatercodiciladdedthatitwas

imperative

thatStalinberemovedfromhispostasGeneralSecretary—he

MargotMorcombe&MarkFielding,

TheSpiritofChange:RussiainRevolution

.(Australia,McGraw‐Hill,2000)p179.

MorcombeandFielding,p73

MorcombeandFielding,p130

VladimirIlyichUlyanov,

CollectedWorks

.Vol36,pp594‐6

alsonotedTrotsky’soutstandingability,andmostblatantly,his“excessiveselfassurance”andknackfortheadministrativeinsteadofthepractical.

StalinplayednosmallpartineliminatingTrotsky;agreatdealofwhichcanbeaccreditedtothecontrolStalinhadovertheappointmentofofficialswithinthePartyandtherefore,thegovernment

.Stalinwasconsidered‘peasant’andwasperceivedaslessintelligentandthereforelessofathreat,whileTrotskyontheotherhand,wasnotacrowdfavorite,andissaidtobearrogant,andthatitwashisfine,strongqualitiesthat‘alienatedandoutmanoeuvred’him.

Hewasadamantlyloyaltothepartyandstuckwithitsdecisionseveniftheywereagainsthim,andthiswasviewedasaweakpointbysomeoftheParty—StalinutilizedthisdoubtandgarneredresentmentagainstTrotsky.

AnotherthingthatfurtherbuiltupthecrowdagainstTrotskywashisattitudetowardstheNEPafterLenin’sdeath.ThetriumvirateofStalinwasfor“socialisminonecountry”whileTrotskyandanumberofothersweresupporting“permanentrevolution”.

StalinandBukharinnotedthatpermanentrevolutionwascontradictorytoLenin’sideaofproletarianrevolution,andthenuseditasgroundstorefuteTrotsky’ssuggestion.

StalinhadnoqualmsaboutbringingupTrotsky’sMenshevikhistoryandrootsinordertodestroyhim,despitewhatissaidinLenin’swill,anditwasfornosmallreasonthatLeninthoughthimtobeutmostthreat,andthereforerefusedtohandhimtheseatofpower.



PartC:EvaluationofSourcesWordCount:542



Morcombe,Margot.

TheSpiritofChange:RussiainRevolution

.Roseville,Australia:McGraw‐Hill,2000.



[307words]

ThesourceisasecondarysourceasitisatextbookontheRussianRevolutionanddiscussesthehistorysurroundingtherevolutionsof1905and1917.PublishedinAustraliain2000,thebookwascompiledandjointlywrittenbyMargotMorcombeandMarkFielding,who,basedontheexpertiseputtopracticeinmakingthebook,aremostprobablyhistorians.ThebookisintendedforhighschoolstudentsstudyingRussianhistoryforentranceexaminations.

Asthebookintendstoinstructthereadersinthe

Ulyanov,pp594‐6

MorcombeandFielding,p180

MorcombeandFielding,p179

MorcombeandFielding,p180

MorcombeandFielding,p183

Ulyanov,pp594‐6.

Ulyanov,pp594‐6.

Morcombe&Fielding,p



skillsof“raisingquestions,investigatingprimarysourcesandthendrawingconclusions”

,thestepsoutlinedineachoftheanalysesinthebookarethoroughandneatlydone.Basedontheoriginandpurposeofthesource,itisvaluableinthehindsightthatispresent,aswellasthewiderscopethatprovidesinformationontheentiretyoftheRussianRevolution.Thesourceisalsopost‐1991,whichiswhentheSovietarchiveswereopenedtopublic,meaningthattheinformationinthebookismostlikelymorereliablethanapre‐1991publication.However,thesourceislimitedbythebroadnessofgeneraltopicexplored,whichmeansthereislittledetailandlessin‐depthexplorationofeachhistoricalaspect.BecausethebookseekstoexploretheentiretopicofRussianRevolution,itisnotespeciallyvaluableininvestigatingTrotsky.Also,thebookconcentratesonthedevelopmentofanalysisskillsinsteadofsimplylayingoutfacts,whichagainlimitstheamountofinformationavailableinit.Thebookismeantforhighschoolstudentsandmaythereforebelimitedbythelevelofvocabularythatisused.Havingtousesimplerwordsmeansthattheinformationpresentedmaynotbecommunicatedaswellasitcouldbeusinganalternativevocabularyandwritingstyle.

Ulyanov,VladimirIlyich‘Lenin’.

Lenin’sTestamentandCodicil.

[235words]



Thedocumentusedisaprimarysource,asitisanexcerptfromtheLenin’slastwillandtestament.ThedocumentisintendedtobereadouttothePartyanditscontentstobecarriedoutforthegoodoftheparty.OneofthemostimportantpartsofthetestamentisLenin’sopinionregardinghissuccessorasitiscrucialinaffectingthegeneralperceptionofeachcandidateforpower,whichisconsideredthemainpurposeofthedocument.Consideringtheoriginandpurposeofthedocument,ithastobenotedthatthedocumentisobviouslybiasedasitrepresentsLenin’sindividualopinion.However,inthecaseofthisinvestigation,thedocument’sbiascanbeconsideredavalue,becausethroughit,historiansstudyingthecharacterofTrotskymayfinditusefulinitsabilitytoshowwhatLeninhimself—theheadofthePartyandoneofTrotsky’sclosestcolleaguesandfriend—thoughtofLevTrotsky.Despiteitsvalues,thesourcestillhaslimitations;oneofwhichisthebiasofthedocument,alongwithitsnarrowscope.ThedocumentisonlycapableofshowinghistorianswhatLeninthoughtofTrotsky,andmaynotnecessarilyreflecttheopinionsofotherpeopleonhim.Lenin’sviewonTrotskytoo,maynot

Morcombe&Fielding,p

ix