This shows the lengths which Trotsky was prepared to go to, to achieve a victory for the red army. He was ruthless, and knew that he needed to be, to achieve a victory for the Red Army, the Bolsheviks, and the second revolution.
I think that, based on what I know about Trotsky, and his leadership skills, he was an excellent, and very powerful leader, and that his organisation of the Red Army is a very important reason as to why the Bolsheviks were able to hold onto power during the Civil war.
The White army lacked good leaders, commanders were often cruel, white generals did not trust each other, and there was much fighting and and arguing because groups had different aims or beliefs.
Some groups wanted the Tsar back, while some wanted a revolutionary change, some wanted a military dictator, others wanted a constitutional government. The only aim which they all had in common was that they wanted to see the Bolsheviks defeated. White generals would not trust each other, meaning that they would not co-ordinate their attacks, which was hard anyway as their armies were so scattered, and communication difficult. This was an advantage to the Red Army, who could easily then defeat White armies individually, one by one.
The Whites did appear to have the advantage of support from foreign powers: Britain, France, Japan, the USA, and several other countries. Their governments did not want to see Bolshevism spread into Europe, and their own countries. This gave the Whites supplies and armaments, although these were very valuable, the troops did not fight, tired of war, and some sympathetic to the Bolsheviks cause. Infact, the intervention of other countries helped the communists. They portrayed themselves as the defenders of the normal Russian people from foreign invaders, while the Whites were being used by capitalist powers. So even what could have been an advantage for the White Army turned out to be a help to the Reds.
Whilst Lenin had helped a lot during the time when the Bolsheviks were trying to gain power and support, I do not think that his role was as much of a success during the Civil war. Lenin's job was now to run the government, organising food and industrial production. This was not an easy job. there had been food riots, and industry was collapsing as starving workers left the cities. But it was still crucial to keep the Red Army well supplied. To achieve this, Lenin introduced the policy of 'War Communism'.
In towns the state took control of industry, the factories were told what to produce. Lenin put in his own managers, who imposed strict discipline on the workers. Food was rationed but only those working could get ration cards, and factory workers and soldiers were given larger rations, this was a good strategy by Lenin, as it encouraged people to join the Red Army, or work in factories to help keep the army well supplied. However, people did get annoyed by the way that things were being run. One report said that: 'One might have thought that these were not factories but the forced labour prisons of the Tsarist times.'
Peasants had expected life to be better after the Bolsheviks took power, however Lenin was making things worse for them, in peasants and workers eyes. The message which was given to them by Lenin and the Communists was that for a Red Army victory, first everyone had to suffer, then life would be a lot better.
In the country things were no better, food was already scarce, and Lenin desperately needed food for the workers. Since peasants were unwilling to sell their grain for money, which was becoming increasingly worthless, Lenin sent units of Cheka to seize food. People found hoarding food supplies were punished harshly, peasants resisted, many deciding to produce less grin, because they assumed it would just be taken away. The struggle became bitter, and the situation worsened. Lenin was losing himself and the Red Army support. Many peasants, as well as workers, began to think that the workers' state was worse than the government of the Tsar, which they had been so keen to be rid of. According to an internet source 'Lenin's policy of War Communism during the Civil War created social distress and led to riots, strikes and demonstrations.' I think that this statement has a lot of truth in it, and that whilst Lenin was a good leader for the Bolsheviks before they took control, his ideas about how to run the government, and deal with workers and peasants were inapropriate, and other methods would have been more successful, and of help to the Bolsheviks. Lenin's leadership qualities were of not great help here, and War Communism was no success at all. Fanya Kaplan who shot Lenin at the end of August in 1918, made a statement to the Cheka, describing Lenin as a "traitor to the revolution"
I have come to the conclusion, after analysing the four reasons given why Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to hold on to power during the civil war, that they are not all equally as important. Overall I think that Trotsky's organisation of the Red army, and the dissunity of the White opposition are more important reasons than War Communism and the Leadership qualities of Lenin.
Trotsky's organisation of the Red Army is a very important reason as to why Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to hold onto power, as he built the Red Army up, almost from scratch, he introduced conscription, and I think that he was a great asset to the Communists, and the Red Army. The disunity of the White opposition is another important reason as to why Lenin and the Bosheviks were able to hold onto power; I think that if they had been more organised, with better leaders, and less disunity, a victory for the White Army would have been possible. War Communism was a failure, peasants resisted, the economy was close to collapsing, and food shortages only worsened. Whilst Lenin may have been a good leader in the past I do not think that his leadership qualities were a help to the Red Army, as he spent most of his time organising War Communism, which led to peasant uprisings, and was no success.