Q) “Lenin was an ineffective decision maker in 1918.

” Assess the validity of this

statement.

To assess whether or not Lenin was an effective decision-maker, we need to analyse whether
his decisions benefitted the Russian nation and its people-this being the line between every
‘good’ or ‘bad’ leader, regardless of nation or the nature of his ideology and political beliefs.

The first major decision Lenin made was the withdrawal of Russia from the battlefields of
WWI. Despite conflict within the Sovnarkom, Lenin accepted Germany’s proposed terms of
surrender, and signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Admittedly, with the Germans only 150
miles away from Petrograd, there was little choice in what the government could do,
nevertheless, a group of Bolsheviks supported Trotsky’s opinion to reject the negotiations.
Lenin was the one who was not deluded by pride or blind faith, but recognised the reality of
Russia’s military fragility, and pressed for the acceptance of the Treaty since the beginning of
the negotiations. He decided to overrule Trotsky’s stance of uncompromising, and sent the
Germans a telegram detailing their surrender, thereby saving Petrograd from siege and
further bloodshed and famine.

The treaty did, however, impose harsh conditions on the Russians, resulting in the loss of
vital territory such as Ukraine, damaging the already weakened economy. Despite the initial
shortcomings, in the long-term, the nation was saved from being plunged into another war
with Germany that would have definitely ended with the sacking of Petrograd and the
government being forced into accepting a much harsher treaty than originally signed.
Therefore, regardless of the country being stripped of crucial assets, Lenin achieved his goal
of peace with Germany, and the withdrawal of Russia from any further conflict, in order to
shift his focus to rebuilding and revitalising the country.

Soon after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin had created the Sovnarkom and established it as
the government of Russia, out of the ashes of the forcibly dissolved Constituent Assembly.
The Assembly had been the hope and dream of the intelligentsia, and its removal caused an
outcry across the nation. Lenin’s reasoning for its dismissal was that it had been corrupted
by counter-revolutionaries, and was only a hindrance in his aims for creating a greater
Russia. The latter may have been partially true, as the Sovnarkom quickly issued a set of
decrees after its establishment, the process unobstructed by the presence of a parliamentary
assembly which would have spent months debating resolutions before passing them. In its
vulnerable state, Russia could not afford to waste time on political nuances whilst it
desperately desired government support and legislature to boost the economy and the
industries, hence, it can be argued that a democratic process would have been unsuitable in a
nation that was accustomed to nothing but the rule of one man, now one party.

The decrees themselves must be studied to see whether or not they were of benefit to the
Russian people. Holding true to his maxim of ‘peace, land and bread’, the decrees catered to
the proletariat and the peasantry, granting; control of factories, an 8-hour working day,
social security, right of self-determination to the ethnic minorities and, most importantly,
the nationalisation of all state, church and private land. The manorial system was abolished,
and a scheme of redistributing the land amongst the peasants was organised. The peasants
and workers, to whom this revolution had been aimed at, were satisfied during 1918 with the
Sovnarkom, and had no particular desire to see its removal in favour for the Constituent
Assembly.

The decisions that Lenin made that damaged Russia and made him unpopular with the
people were the massacre of the Kronstadt rebels and the War Commission.
At the cusp of the outbreak of the Civil War, a group of soldiers who had once supported the
Bolsheviks, staged a mutiny against the government. The Red Army responded swiftly and
brutally, slaughtering the rebels and regularly executing dissidents. The nation was furious
at the senseless killing of once decorated loyalists of the government, fearing for their own
safety in the face of a fickle and paranoid establishment. Arguably, the Bolsheviks were
attempting to maintain the status quo and secure political stability, but the decisions made
by Lenin in doing so were met with nothing but anger and dissent, which only exacerbated
the mood of rebellion in Russia. Furthermore, the policy of the War Commission enacted by
Lenin to supply the Red Army in the Civil War was despised by the peasantry, who lost their
food and supplies, the country spiralling into famine. Millions of workers left Petrograd in
search for food, leaving behind empty factories, and a crumbling economy.

Therefore, we can see that indubitably, Lenin had good intentions, as well as personal
aspirations, in the decisions he made during 1918, with more of them succeeding in
benefitting the Russians than not. However, his failed policies cannot be ignored as they did
serious harm to both the people and the nation, with the security of the Bolsheviks more in
mind than the general safety of the nation. Hence, we can conclude that Lenin was not an
ineffective leader, rather one led by his personal ambitions than the love of his people, which
is what led to the outbreak of the Civil War.