Trotsky and Stalin's opinion, who is more reasonable? If we only look at the conclusions of Western experts after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Trotsky's views are undoubtedly more to their taste, and the views of the old Torotsky seem to be more in line with the scientific concept of development.

However, to be honest, these two views should be said to be reasonable, and to declare that this is definitely not a mud, but to seek truth from facts, and the views of both sides do have profound truth.

Let's start with Trotsky's point of view, judging by his speech, the old Tollsky is worthy of the great men of his time who are on a par with Lenin. As a politician, he did a good job of choosing key issues.

With the development of human civilization and the progress of science and technology, war, the most cruel social activity in human history, has higher and higher requirements for people. The quality of people plays a vital role in the victory or defeat of a war, and some comrades may refute this viewpoint with a series of brilliant achievements of US imperialism at the end of the 20 th century and the beginning of the new century, as if the key factor determining the victory of the war is only high-tech weapons.

It should be said that such a view is too one-sided, and no matter how high-tech the weapon is, it must be operated by people. Just imagine, if the opponents of US imperialism are allowed to change places, can the subordinates of Saddam Hussein and Uncle bin Laden and others play the role of high-tech weapons of US imperialism?

This is really not a joke, and the examples are not limited to the US imperialists. Several wars in the Middle East between Israel and Arab countries also bear out this conclusion. To be sure, in several Middle East wars, there was no generational difference in the weapons and equipment of the warring parties, but why was the result always so one-sided?

It's not that the Israelis are too invincible, it's that the Arabs are too wasteful. When good things are in their hands, they can't exert the lethality they should have. That is, they used it up.

Let's be honest. The Soviets have the most power to express their indignation at the performance of the Arab coalition forces, Nima, you guys are simply smashing the signboard of Soviet-style weapons, okay! Don't bring such negative advertising!

In Trotsky's time, military technology was not so developed, and the quality of man played an even more crucial role. At that time, the Russian army was really worrisome in terms of combat effectiveness. At least within the scope of the world, it is not first-class, and can only be regarded as the middle and lower reaches of the great powers. It belongs to the tactics of crowds, the flow of violent troops, and the use of the lives of a large number of gray animals to pile up victories (of course, there are also great powers that have done worse than Russia, such as Japan. Although the devils won the Russo-Japanese War, they really didn't fight well in the land war. The famous Nogi military god is a good player at playing meat bullets. If it weren't for Russia's internal and external difficulties, and the Far East was too far away from its core area, it would be hard to say who would have died).

Just imagine, the Russian army, which is professional, has undergone professional military education and training, fights like this. Halfway home. What kind of virtue could the technical and tactical level of the Red Army, which had not undergone professional military training?

So. Trotsky's fears were quite justified, and the Red Army, which was now hastily organised, was, in a sense, a rabble of empty passions. With the superiority of equipment and troops, it may be okay to fight a good fight. And once in adversity, when the enemy has more advantages, what kind of fight will be like, it is really difficult to say.

And to rely on such a half-leaved army to defend Soviet power is undoubtedly brainless, and to put it badly is to make a big gamble. True politicians do not gamble, they plan and then act, they try to weaken the enemy and strengthen themselves, and they will never fight unprepared battles.

And Trotsky was a real qualified statesman, and he would never go to the stud, let alone put all his hopes on a rabble whose combat effectiveness is difficult to say. Therefore, he must have a plan and find a way.

And the best he could now think of was to appoint the old officers and the old intellectuals, and to absorb those parts of them who were not so hostile to the Soviets. Let these professional soldiers with combat experience and military skills command battles, train the army, and maintain the operation of the military-industrial complex.

It should be said that such an idea cannot be said to be particularly good, but it is particularly realistic, particularly effective, and can solve a series of practical problems if it is used well.

So why is it that Stalin vehemently opposed this point of view is also justified? If Trotsky was right, does it mean that the steel argument is problematic and that he is wrong?

Not necessarily, it's still the same sentence, don't look at the problem with an absolute dualistic concept in whatever you do. There is no such thing as absolute right and absolutely wrong in this world, and there are pros and cons to everything, even if it is later proven to be a good thing.

The simplest example, is the opening and reform strategy of the Harmonious Country in later generations good? In all fairness, this is correct, it is beneficial to the country and the people, and it is worth picking two thumbs up to praise. But there is no problem, the same is, to put it mildly, a series of economic and social problems of the later harmonious countries can find their roots in this policy.

In the same way, Trotsky's strategy, or method of solving real problems, is equally problematic. Stalin's fears were not unreasonable, as far as the old officer class in Russia was concerned, there was a part of the enlightened people who believed that the present Russia really needed to change, and that the time had come to change. They are willing to make change and they embrace it.

However, although there are such people, they are definitely not the majority. The vast majority of the old officers, more or less, were reluctant to support the Bolsheviks, both on the question of the Brest Pact and on the socialist transformation to be carried out in Russia, in matters of vital interest.

If such a group of old officers with questionable loyalty were to be completely handed over to them in military power, the result would probably not be good. Even Trotsky himself did not dare to pat his chest and pack the ticket. This can also be seen from his previous statements, and the only ones he wants to promote and appoint are those enlightened officers.

It's a pity that people's hearts are separated from their bellies, whether the old officers are really enlightened or pretend to be really enlightened. Or simply not enlightened. There is no proven way to detect it. In fact, in the Russian Civil War. The situation of rebellion has also appeared more than once.

There was the old officer who was originally very enlightened. Suddenly, there was a reversal, and there were those who pretended to be enlightened and turned away without paying attention, and there were even those who kept swinging and dancing between the White Army and the Red Army. It is to be honest that Stalin did not trust them with full justification.

However, this does not mean that Stalin's views are completely defensible, and his views and starting points are still problematic. Needless to say, the problems that Trotsky was concerned about, especially the working class, which had just woken up. Capabilities are limited. If you don't guide them at all and let them toss, I'm afraid it won't end well.

Stalin, on the other hand, seemed to be too relieved of the capabilities of the Russian working class, and he was a little carried away by the victory of the October Revolution, and one-sidedly thought that there was nothing that the working class could not do.

They thought that the working class in Russia was God, omniscient and omnipotent. You don't need guidance, you don't need help, you can solve everything by yourself. What is it to fight? Engaging in the economy, engaging in science and technology, and maintaining the operation of the state apparatus are all possible!

Such an idea is a brainless brute force. In rational terms, it means not being scientific and unreasonable. Even strong words. It is quite a bit of the style of the 60s when the people were criticized on the street in the 60s. To put it mildly, or simply to put it mildly, the Russian working class at that time was simply not capable of being the masters of the country.

Of course, if Stalin only proceeded from class feelings and consciously defended the interests of his own class, then this is understandable.

The problem is that Stalin's purpose in saying this was not simply to defend the interests of the proletariat in Russia, but he also had his own little calculations. Judging from the later historical facts, this man and Trotsky violently contradicted each other, strongly opposed Trotsky's use of enlightened old officers and intellectuals, and even persecuted a large number of enlightened old officers and intellectuals under his command, and certainly did not do so out of class feelings.

Stalin and Trotsky were not the same, although they were both statesmen, but their styles and emphases were completely different. Trotsky was sometimes idealistic and revolutionary romantic, while Stalin was a cold piece of steel, and he had only revolutionary realism.

For Stalin, if he wanted to do something, it must be of practical significance, and ideals and romance had to stand aside. The reason why the two men were so different in the treatment of the old officers and the old intellectuals was entirely because Stalin had his own interests in mind.

Stalin was a very ambitious man (Trotsky too, but not as emotional and utilitarian as Stalin) and had previously had fierce conflicts with Trotsky, with Sverdlov and even with Lenin over his own political interests.

At present, it is no longer realistic for Stalin to expect to defeat Sverdlov and become Lenin's sole successor. The reality is that he Stalin is the one who is the one who is the one who is likely to be defeated. Moreover, Lenin also clearly expressed his disgust at the excessively heated internal strife. If he doesn't hurry up and rein in the precipice, the consequences will be worrying.

This forced Stalin to re-examine his political strategy, and instead of continuing the internal struggle, it could only fight externally, and the goal of the external struggle was now only one - only Trotsky. Only by showing his mentor the courage to fight Trotsky, and the means to do so, could he regain his trust in him.

Therefore, what Trotsky supports, he must oppose, and he must oppose sharply, even if it is unreasonable, he must stir him up, and even if he does not get any benefit, he must show his position and courage to the Mentor.

That's why Stalin was fighting Trotsky at this moment, and he was so aggressive. The main reason is to cater to the tutors. Of course, there was a relatively minor reason, and that was that Stalin was sensitively aware of the Central Committee's wariness and antipathy to Trotsky's proposals.

Most of the members of the Central Committee had a naïve class sentiment similar to Stalin's, and they were deeply wary and hostile to any suggestion that might be detrimental to their own class. Not everyone is completely shielded from the interference of dualism, not even the old revolutions.

To put it mildly. Trotsky's proposal was indeed realistic and constructive. But at the same time. For the members of the Central Committee present here, this is also deviant. The revolution has just succeeded, and you kid are going to give away the armed power of the revolution to the enemy, what do you want to do? They want to overthrow our regime!

Even those who had a good relationship with Trotsky, even those who were political allies of Trotsky, were disgusted by the suggestion made by the old To, as for those who had been on the wrong path with him before. Directly think that this product is crazy.

It has been said that geniuses are lonely, and a political genius like Trotsky is also lone on this issue. Narrow class sentiments blinded the eyes of most of the Central Committee members, and dogmatic thinking made it difficult for them to understand and approve of Trotsky's proposals.

In a sense, Trotsky was a man who was good at planning for his country, but not for himself. Perhaps his suggestion would have been of great benefit to the Bolsheviks and Russia at the time, but at the same time, it would have brought him to the forefront and drawn a lot of hatred for him for no reason. You're welcome. When he made this suggestion, it was already a failure.

Let's break it down. If this proposal is adopted, not only the Central Committee, but also the vast majority of newly awakened workers, their interests and feelings will be hurt. Even if, in fact, Trotsky proceeded from the defense of the overall situation and defended Soviet Russia, the newly awakened working class probably could not think so deeply, nor would it think so deeply.

In their eyes, Trotsky was probably a bastard, a bastard who spoke for the bourgeoisie, and who had to remember him to the death and scold him whenever he had time. What's more, if someone like Stalin adds fuel to the smear of Trotsky, the image of a despicable villain will come to the minds of the people.

At the same time, those who vehemently opposed Trotsky, the one who opposed him, even if his intentions were not entirely for the sake of the overall situation, even if his proposals would cause the proletariat great losses. However, in politics, it is easy for him to gain a glorious image and be easily portrayed as a hero.

Seriously, this strong dramatic effect is simply laughable, the person who is so good for you has been scolded, criticized, and hated; What an irony that the person who did you bad has reaped a thousand thanks!

However, such things are indeed common in politics, pointing to the deer as the horse, referring to the black as the white, for this highly competitive industry, may be a must master.

Of course, this is only the first possibility, what if Trotsky's opinion does not pass? Without passing the same there would be no good fruit of Trotsky to eat!

For the black-bellied men of Stalin and his ilk, Trotsky's suggestion is in itself worthy of criticism, worthy of a large number of special criticisms, and they can announce it to the outside world - see no, Trotsky has finally revealed his true colors, this guy is still bourgeois at heart, he is still disconnected from the false socialist ideas of the Mensheviks, and it is worth being vigilant!

As long as such momentum is created, even if it does not cause much damage to Trotsky for the time being, but when the time comes, or when the time comes, it is time to fall into the well and beat the water dogs. This charge will definitely be revealed, and there will be no accidents! At least Stalin was very good at this kind of out-of-context trick.

Fortunately, in 1918, it was not Stalin's turn to be in charge, and for Lenin, another revolutionary mentor, Trotsky's proposals, although problematic, were able to solve many of the thorny problems that would be faced in practice.

Lenin was always tolerant of comrades who were able to solve practical problems, because the Mentor himself was not a particularly method-oriented person, but more focused on results. What annoys him the most is the kind of mouth cannon party that quotes scriptures and rhetoric, seems to be omnipresent in heaven and earth, and at the end of the day, he can't even do a small thing the size of a sesame mung bean.

The problems of Trotsky's proposals were naturally visible to Lenin, but the potential problems were negligible to Lenin in relation to the benefits of solving the practical problems. As long as there is no problem with the general direction, as long as it can be beneficial to the overall situation, why not support it? As for those small problems, we can slowly find ways to overcome and solve them, and the main contradictions must be solved first at the critical moment.

From this point of view, it can be shown that Lenin is great, and that there is tolerance, and judging from later examples, Stalin really lacked such a tolerant belly.

Lenin, on the other hand, was completely different, in essence he did not like Trotsky, and the contradiction between him and Trotsky was always present and very acute. Lenin, however, was able to say good things about Trotsky in his political testament before his death, and was able to affirm Trotsky's contribution to the Soviet Union.

On the contrary, look at Stalin, his capacity was too small, and after the defeat of Trotsky, after the exile of old Toll, steel was still stubborn. Even if Trotsky later went into exile, he could only write an article on paper and scold him without pain, which could not cause any real damage to steel, but steel still refused to let him go.

Although there is no evidence that the removal of Trotsky was directly instructed by Stalin, no one would be naïve to believe that Stalin was completely unaware. (To be continued......)

PS: Bow again and thank you for the second kill Comrade Potato!