In fact, in December 1919, Warsaw and the remnants of Foch were no longer in focus, and both the Allies and the Bolsheviks were consciously or unconsciously downplaying the issue, as if nothing had happened in Warsaw.

Why is this happening? The reason is very simple, as the Red Army and the Allied forces are locked in a standoff, as both sides find that neither side can do anything about the other, and as both sides find that their internal problems are more serious than their external problems, both sides can only do so.

The question of the Entente has been said many times before, and it will not be repeated here. The internal problems of the Bolsheviks were in fact no less than those of the Entente, and could even be said to be much greater than those of the Entente.

Let's put it this way, four years of World War I and two years of civil war almost completely destroyed the Russian economy, and at the end of 1919, when Lenin saw the official statistical report, he almost burst into tears.

Why? It's miserable! In 1919 the level of the Russian economy was only a little more than 30% of the pre-war level of 1913, industry fell by 60%, agriculture fell by 70%, and the level of commerce in the country as a whole went almost a century back!

It is true that the current situation in Russia was not caused by the Bolsheviks, and the war was the main cause. But it is also true that the Bolsheviks did not live up to what they promised before the October Revolution.

Lenin had a super troublesome mess in front of him, and if he continued to carry out the world revolution and continue to export the revolution according to Trotsky's theory, Russia would almost have a dead end.

So Lenin felt that he had to stop. Otherwise. Another new revolution was about to overthrow the Bolsheviks. That's when his sincerity became a joke. Naturally, the Mentor had to deal with the situation in Warsaw and Poland.

Of course, Trotsky was not convinced, and he constantly tried to fight back, trying to redefine his line and course within the party. It was at this time that the famous debate on "whether a country can build socialism" began.

Trotsky, with his most classic theory, expounded the reasons why it is impossible for a single country to build socialism, and called on the people of the whole country to recognize the point that he had constantly emphasized before - that there is only a way to survive in a permanent revolution!

In any case, Trotsky had mobilized all the generals he could, and for a moment it seemed that he was about to turn the world upside down. But here's what's more peculiar. Lenin did not fight back violently, but on the contrary, the Mentor was very calm, as if he were sitting and watching Trotsky perform.

It was precisely because of the frenzied counterattack of the Trotskyists that the armistice negotiations went quite unsmoothly, and as mentioned at the end of the previous chapter, the final result was not reached until March 1920.

So why did Lenin allow Trotsky to toss at that time? Was he really so confident that he could ignore the Trotskyist counterattack?

Certainly not, the gap between Lenin and Trotsky was very small, to paraphrase the Taizu of this dynasty, "you can't catch up with LSQ without studying for three days". With a slight nap from Lenin, perhaps Trotsky would have forced an overtake.

And the reason why Lenin did nothing. The reason was simple, because the instructor was also hesitant at that time. In essence, he agreed with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which held that the victory of the revolution could only be achieved by mobilizing the forces of the proletariat throughout the world. On this question, Lenin did not say that he fully agreed with Trotsky's conclusions, but he could basically agree with them.

With the defeat of the German revolution and the successive extinguishing of the Hungarian revolution and the Czechoslovak revolution, it is equivalent to saying that only the Russian revolution in the world has succeeded.

As a revolutionary who had seen the world, Lenin deeply understood how big the gap was between Russia and the imperialist hooligans of Britain, France, and the United States.

Lenin didn't dare to pat this chest, but he realized that this war really could not continue, so he was very confused, and he didn't know how to choose for a while. It is precisely for this reason that he simply allowed the Trotskyists to fight back, and let the party have a spontaneous discussion to see what the attitude of the whole party on this issue was.

If Trotsky had been able to persuade the whole party to agree to his line and policy under extremely unfavourable conditions, Lenin would have pinched his nose and conceded it.

So did Trotsky win?

Obviously, Lao Tuo lost, and it was a complete defeat!

After he put forward the argument that one country could not build socialism, when Lenin did not react for a long time, Lao Tuo was still a little happy and proud, thinking that Lenin had coaxed his compatriots. But who would have thought that Lenin did not take the initiative to fight back, it does not mean that the Leninists will not fight back. As two of Lenin's most important assistants, Stalin and Sverdlov soon gave Trotsky a head-on blow!

Stalin, as in history, put forward the theory that socialism can be built in one country, and there were a lot of arguments, not to mention whether these arguments were correct or not, but in any case greatly changed the party's perception of him.

What was the perception of Stalin within the Bolsheviks before? At that time, it was generally believed that Comrade Stalin was a good hand in handling practical problems and a down-to-earth and hard-working comrade, but his theoretical level was not high and he was unable to lead the party forward theoretically.

To put it bluntly, most of the party at that time thought that Stalin was the one who did the concrete implementation work, and that it was okay to do practical things, but the political vision was not clever enough (otherwise the February Revolution would have made a mistake in line?). Such a comrade is more suitable to be the second-in-command, and is more suitable to cooperate with the first-in-command to carry out work. In today's parlance, Stalin was only fit to be chancellor or secretary of state, and someone had to lead him in front.

And this time Stalin theoretically fought with Trotsky, not to mention gaining an advantage, at least this approach was quite gratifying. If Stalin could take the initiative to make up for this shortcoming, then his future would seem to be better.

So in this great controversy, Stalin was very popular, even more eye-catching than Sverdlov, who had always been much better than him. Speak from the heart. Xiao Si's reaction this time was a bit minus.

Why are there any points lost? Because Smalls did not theoretically compete with Trotsky. In the polemics, he did not mention anything about the World Revolution. On the contrary, proceeding from reality, he concretely pointed out how critical and difficult the situation in Russia is, and that the war cannot continue at this time, and that it is necessary to recuperate and recuperate.

Objectively speaking, what Xiao Si said was the truth, and it was a very pragmatic truth, so why did he lose points?

The reason is very simple, these honest party bigwigs know it. The big guy knows very well how difficult the situation is at the moment. It is precisely because everyone is clear that Xiao Si's speech gives them a feeling of fried rice, too lacking in political freshness, and there is nothing that can make their eyes shine, compared with Stalin's action of taking the initiative to make up for the shortcomings, Xiao Si is tantamount to standing still. Naturally, points will be deducted!

So why did Xiao Si choose this kind of penalty to deal with it? Is he really Jiang Lang's talent?

No, objectively speaking, Xiao Si's theoretical level is actually half a pound and eight taels compared with Stalin, and it is a big difference compared with Lenin and Trotsky. This time Trotsky attacked in the areas he did best, and objectively only Lenin could stop them. Levels like Xiao Si and Stalin are beaten when they meet.

Xiao Si naturally didn't want to be beaten, and Lenin's attitude this time was quite unpredictable. Xiao Si, who had no bottom in his heart, naturally chose the safest way to deal with it.

There is nothing wrong with seeking stability for the political family, but when you seek stability, they are desperate and the gamble succeeds. Stalin, for example, this time he made the right bet. His approach did make Lenin appreciate it even more, and he went up to the front in the face of difficulties to fight Trotsky theoretically, regardless of whether he could win or not, this attitude was absolutely demanding. In the incomparably difficult era in the future, we will need such hard-headed leading cadres.

Otherwise, everyone is afraid of difficulties, so what future does Russia have under the joint blockade and strangulation of imperialism? When the leaders are all cowardly and grassy, can the masses below not mess up?

All in all, this time Lenin deliberately did not take a position, and he did not mean to look at the successor table. And it is clear that Stalin scored higher on will, making the mentor feel that he had not chosen the wrong person first.

As for Xiao Si, he can only learn lessons, because with the advent of peacetime, there will be more similar tests in the future, and he cannot seek stability every time, because there is no room for stability in Russia's political environment at that time. To put it bluntly, from the day the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, they could only struggle hard in the cracks, and there was no room for conservative and conservative survival. As the leader of such a country, he can only rise to the challenge, and must not turn around and run away!

Fortunately, Xiao Si still has many opportunities, if he misses this time, there will be a next time, anyway, the entire twenties and thirties will be a mess of struggle, as long as you don't keep making mistakes, you can always gain from persevering to the end!

Of course, it must be noted that it was not Stalin who scored the most points in this round, and the brightest blind dog's eye! Compared with the blind bull man, Stalin's appearance can only be said to be good. Why? For as mentioned earlier, Iron Sincerity was no match for Trotsky in theory, and even he and Little Sga were no match for Trotsky, and although he had shown great courage, he could not defeat Trotsky alone.

If this controversy is really just steel alone against Trotsky, then steel will probably be blown up or hanged, and in any case disgrace is indispensable. Without Bukharin's participation in this polemic, the result would have been a complete defeat for steel. But with the addition of Bukharin, the situation is completely different!

Some officials may wonder, isn't Bukharin in league with Trotsky? Why did he oppose Trotsky?

Well, this question can really only be asked of Bukharin himself, because he is also a wonder in the history of the Bolsheviks. After the victory of the October Revolution, this guy almost split the Bolsheviks because he opposed peace with Germany and the signing of the "Brest Treaty", which humiliated the country.

Historically, after Germany surrendered and the Brest Pact came to an end, this product was able to take the initiative to review and make self-criticism in the Central Committee. After Lenin's death, on the issue of the revolutionary line and economic construction, this man parted ways with his former friend Lao Tuo. On the side of steel.

In a word. Don't guess what Bukharin's mind was. That's impossible to guess!

Of course, it is impossible not to guess, so why did Bukharin oppose Trotsky's line?

There may be three reasons, first of all, Bukharin may not have been interested in any world revolution from the beginning, if he was so respectful of the world revolution, he should defend the overall situation for a while, after all, Lenin's proposition is right from the overall situation. And from the point of view of the world revolution. After the victory of the Russian Revolution led to the victory of the German Revolution, weren't unequal treaties just butt wipes?

So it is quite possible that Bukharin was not interested in the world revolution or in the world revolution as a whole, he was only concerned with the Russian question. Please note this, it is important!

Secondly, Bukharin was very sympathetic to the Russian proletariat, especially the Russian peasant class, and was dissatisfied with the almost ruthless economic policies of the civil war. In his view, if the war continues, then this deformed policy can only continue, and the proletariat will inevitably continue to struggle in dire straits.

Therefore, Bukharin had opinions and was quite dissatisfied with Trotsky's method of continuing the war and continuing to export the revolution. And he is not satisfied, that is really the king of heaven and Lao Tzu is not stunned. Questions about the Brest Compact of those years. It was not that he had not debated Lenin and Trotsky.

The third and final reason was that within the Bolsheviks at that time, Bukharin was probably a great man in theory, especially in economic theory. Looking at the revolutionaries of the Bolsheviks at that time, there were not many who could be called bulls in theory, and it can even be said that apart from Lenin and Trotsky, there was only Bukharin.

As a master of theory, Bukharin, by his own reasoning, disagreed with the conclusion that a single state under Trotsky could not build socialism. According to Bukharin's deduction, he believed that socialism could be built in a single country!

A scholar like Bukharin, after coming to a conclusion, it is very difficult to change his sincerity, and if you can't make him admit his mistake convincingly (such as the "Brest Contract"), then you must be ready to argue with him to the end. Anyway, if you don't make the reason clear, and don't convince Bukharin, you're ready to be annoyed to death by him!

It is clear that Trotsky was not prepared for this, and in fact he did not anticipate at all that the fiercest and most powerful opposition to him would not come from the Leninists, but from within the Trotskyists!

When the second-in-command of the Trotskyists openly rebelled against the number one, and when Bukharin refuted his theories one by one in front of Trotsky, one can imagine how sensational the effect was and how terrifying the consequences were.

In any case, Trotsky was so squeezed that he could not get off the stage, and Bukharin still did not give any face, and that posture really meant that the truth became clearer and clearer the more he argued, and he was not afraid to break the casserole and ask to the end.

In fact, when I saw this scene, it was not only Trotsky who was shocked, but even Lenin had a feeling that Bukharin had taken the wrong script. Where else did he feel like a close friend of Trotsky, who was simply an enemy of the world.

Caught off guard, Trotsky was stunned, and he was not fully prepared for the fact that he was rushed by Bukharin, and coupled with Stalin's smacked stick, Trotsky was completely defeated after several encounters!

What an uproar! Previously, both Lenin and Trotsky believed that the next generation in the party, with the exception of Xiao Si and Stalin, who were the most prolific, could only play role players. It is believed that the next generation of Bolshevik leaders is likely to remain in the Big Two model. The strong Xiao Si and the weak Stalin carried each other, and the two complemented each other and promoted each other.

But this time Bukharin is a blockbuster, and from the level of his performance in this polemic, who dares to say that he is worse than Xiao Si and Steel? Even in Lenin's view, Bukharin's theoretical level was much higher than that of Si and Steel, and from a purely theoretical point of view, the heavy responsibility of supplementing and developing Marxism-Leninism should fall on his shoulders.

It can be imagined that Bukharin is in charge of ideological work, party affairs are handed over to Stalin, and Xiao Si is in charge of the overall situation. Not kidding, Lenin was indeed a little tempted, and Bukharin was really strong in theory, except for the fact that sometimes it was strange to make two mistakes. The fact that there is such a revolutionary theoretician who dominates the ideological sphere in Russia guarantees that the Russian revolution will not go down the wrong path for at least two or three generations!

Of course, although this prospect is wonderful, Lenin will not start to arrange it immediately, because there is no need to worry for the time being, with his and Trotsky's age, it is easy to work in the first line for ten years, and even if he retires from the second line, he can help the helm, and then at least ten years to see if Bukharin really has this ability.

For the Mentor, the most important thing was to put an end to the controversy over the world revolution, to conclude negotiations with the Entente as soon as possible, and to restore the Russian economy as soon as possible. As for what successor, he Lenin is just 50 years old, and the next ten years will be the best for him, and he is fully confident that he will open a new chapter in Russia in the next ten years!

So we will soon see that on April 1, 1920, April Fool's Day, Soviet Russia, the East Prussian People's Republic, and the Entente agreed in Warsaw that the two sides would end the state of war and establish a general ceasefire along the military demarcation line, and that the question of the future of Poland would be resolved by a new round of negotiations in Zurich, Switzerland...... (To be continued......)

PS: Bow and thank you Comrade Juventus!