What do you think?
Rate this book
Military Writings
The central organizer of the Red Army discusses the challenge of organizing an army made up of peasants and workers, based on a shared interest in defending the young Soviet republic. Also Available Spanish.
210 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1969
2 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,071 books805 followersSee also Лев Троцкий
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 7, 2024
Not the text I wanted, but definitely the one I needed!
I started reading this after doing some research on Allende's Chile. Clearly one major thing that was missing in Chile was the will to build a Red Army. I honestly expected these texts to be about the building of the red army; I wanted a handbook. Spoiler alert: it's not!
These are the transcript of debates that happened during and after the Civil War on how to build the red army. Although it's called military writings, these debates were actually philosophical. They revolved around questions like: Is there a proletarian military doctrine as opposed to the bourgeoisie? Is war a science? Is it an art? Is there a Marxist method to war? Read it to find out!
In these texts you can already see the bolsheviks' constant awareness of the creeping bureaucratism (or "functionarism") in various spheres of the new society, including the Red Army. Trotsky was already warning of the dangers of the "old guard" asking the younger generations to blindly trust and follow them.
Though they remain general and abstract (and Trotsky warns again and again that the truth is always concrete), of course there is a lot of valuable insight throughout the book on how to build an army and make war. But at the end of the day, this is more philosophical than "militaristic". One emerges out of it with a better understanding of the Marxist method and less likely to fetishize it.
I started reading this after doing some research on Allende's Chile. Clearly one major thing that was missing in Chile was the will to build a Red Army. I honestly expected these texts to be about the building of the red army; I wanted a handbook. Spoiler alert: it's not!
These are the transcript of debates that happened during and after the Civil War on how to build the red army. Although it's called military writings, these debates were actually philosophical. They revolved around questions like: Is there a proletarian military doctrine as opposed to the bourgeoisie? Is war a science? Is it an art? Is there a Marxist method to war? Read it to find out!
In these texts you can already see the bolsheviks' constant awareness of the creeping bureaucratism (or "functionarism") in various spheres of the new society, including the Red Army. Trotsky was already warning of the dangers of the "old guard" asking the younger generations to blindly trust and follow them.
Though they remain general and abstract (and Trotsky warns again and again that the truth is always concrete), of course there is a lot of valuable insight throughout the book on how to build an army and make war. But at the end of the day, this is more philosophical than "militaristic". One emerges out of it with a better understanding of the Marxist method and less likely to fetishize it.
December 31, 2021
trotsky at his most trotsky; denouncing some article a guy wrote for 200 pages.
the article in question was written by konstantin simonov, who seems to have been representing a broader swathe of opinion within the soviet military by calling for the formulation and implementation of a single coherent military doctrine that could be both proletarian and revolutionary in nature, to develop education in the army and to expand the worker's state beyond its borders. trotsky rejects the dichotomy simonov establishes between counter-revolutionary states with positionist doctrines / revolutionary states with maneuverist doctrines, underlining the need to be clear in explaining to the working class and peasantry just how dire the global situation is and why expecting them to become a highly trained highly disciplined guerilla army in the position to establish new states in Europe by conscripting and educating them is naive in the extreme.
i document all this because there's a lot in simonov's argument that you could map onto theories such as protracted people's war or focoism and in trotsky's argument that pragmatism is the only constant in military affairs, that winning a war is not a science / there are not inveterately Marxist ways of doing it, we get a substantial challenge to some of its core ideas that go beyond moralising or pacifist ones
surprised he didn't have much to say on how world war I marked a turning point in the history of warfare; like a lot of contemporary Marxist literature on this stuff the focus is on the Napoleonic wars. I wonder if that paradigm shift wasn't as visible at the time trotsky was writing
the article in question was written by konstantin simonov, who seems to have been representing a broader swathe of opinion within the soviet military by calling for the formulation and implementation of a single coherent military doctrine that could be both proletarian and revolutionary in nature, to develop education in the army and to expand the worker's state beyond its borders. trotsky rejects the dichotomy simonov establishes between counter-revolutionary states with positionist doctrines / revolutionary states with maneuverist doctrines, underlining the need to be clear in explaining to the working class and peasantry just how dire the global situation is and why expecting them to become a highly trained highly disciplined guerilla army in the position to establish new states in Europe by conscripting and educating them is naive in the extreme.
i document all this because there's a lot in simonov's argument that you could map onto theories such as protracted people's war or focoism and in trotsky's argument that pragmatism is the only constant in military affairs, that winning a war is not a science / there are not inveterately Marxist ways of doing it, we get a substantial challenge to some of its core ideas that go beyond moralising or pacifist ones
surprised he didn't have much to say on how world war I marked a turning point in the history of warfare; like a lot of contemporary Marxist literature on this stuff the focus is on the Napoleonic wars. I wonder if that paradigm shift wasn't as visible at the time trotsky was writing
March 3, 2024
I was very positively surprised by this book. Considering the author I was expecting the book to be more infused with political statements and philosophical views of the world and revolution. Surprisingly it was not, quite to the contrary.
Now I wont go into the character of Trotsky himself. It is obvious this was very educated man, highly eloquent (in what looks to be productive not just demagogue way) with interest in many areas and (as far as I can see) solid grasp on many subjects and as such, it is obvious why he was placed high in Bolshevik's ranks. Also it is visible that he was of that kind of man who know they are smartest in the room (or at least one of the smartest) and this would drive crazy anyone else in that same room. I also have a feeling that Trotsky would have had a very unrealistic plans for the revolution itself that would bring him into more direct conflict with the rest of the party. All of this would surely explain his exile and reason why he was not executed immediatelly - he left a strong mark post-revolution and especially strong mark on the military,
Again I am not familiar with all of the above developments so cannot fully atest to Trotsky and his goals, I can only give my impressions from this book.
Book shows clearly that Trotsky was a very practical man when it comes to warfare. This is visible in his constant comments that military work (as is case with every practical human endeavor) cannot be imbued with political dogma or philosophical views. I especially liked his view of military work, not as a science but as an art (or better yet, synthesis of various other sciences and arts). For him, true military commander is someone who knows a lot, from social sciences, physics and other natural sciences, with addition of military teachings of course. And I have to agree with it, ideally this would be the best case (but then again this would be great in case of any profession). In this entire book Trotsky constantly warns about dangers of presenting military works as result of some philosophical and dogmatic way of reasoning and thinking (and he clealry considers Marxism as one of those philosophies). For him military works are art, and concepts ruling it exist since first organized form of war took place under the sun. What is required is distilling the knowledge for the new generations (which trotsky very smartly describes as generations that wont be led by fires of the Revolution, they wont know much about it except from stories or books, so they need the acquired knowledge of the generations that fought in the Revolution) in order to ensure further development of military - both technologically and in view of history/application of war related activities.
This is also why trotsky saw no issues with using the acquired knowledge of old Imperial Army officers, because he was very much aware that without that knowledge currently existing revolutionary army (mostly partisan/guerilla in nature) cannot progress, evolve into the potent military force (capable of any type of assignments) and finally stand against the enemy states (whose armies are seen by Trotsky as professional and very experienced no matter the political forces running them). As history shows this merger of old, what might be called standard military knowledge, and new revolutionary approach to war would enable the Soviet Army to win WW2.
Again, very interesting book, surprisingly clear headed and practical when it comes to warfare. As a matter of fact Trotsky's comments how mixing (or as he says muddling) military works with philosophical and political dogma will always end up in disaster, sound very true even today.
Highly recommended.
Now I wont go into the character of Trotsky himself. It is obvious this was very educated man, highly eloquent (in what looks to be productive not just demagogue way) with interest in many areas and (as far as I can see) solid grasp on many subjects and as such, it is obvious why he was placed high in Bolshevik's ranks. Also it is visible that he was of that kind of man who know they are smartest in the room (or at least one of the smartest) and this would drive crazy anyone else in that same room. I also have a feeling that Trotsky would have had a very unrealistic plans for the revolution itself that would bring him into more direct conflict with the rest of the party. All of this would surely explain his exile and reason why he was not executed immediatelly - he left a strong mark post-revolution and especially strong mark on the military,
Again I am not familiar with all of the above developments so cannot fully atest to Trotsky and his goals, I can only give my impressions from this book.
Book shows clearly that Trotsky was a very practical man when it comes to warfare. This is visible in his constant comments that military work (as is case with every practical human endeavor) cannot be imbued with political dogma or philosophical views. I especially liked his view of military work, not as a science but as an art (or better yet, synthesis of various other sciences and arts). For him, true military commander is someone who knows a lot, from social sciences, physics and other natural sciences, with addition of military teachings of course. And I have to agree with it, ideally this would be the best case (but then again this would be great in case of any profession). In this entire book Trotsky constantly warns about dangers of presenting military works as result of some philosophical and dogmatic way of reasoning and thinking (and he clealry considers Marxism as one of those philosophies). For him military works are art, and concepts ruling it exist since first organized form of war took place under the sun. What is required is distilling the knowledge for the new generations (which trotsky very smartly describes as generations that wont be led by fires of the Revolution, they wont know much about it except from stories or books, so they need the acquired knowledge of the generations that fought in the Revolution) in order to ensure further development of military - both technologically and in view of history/application of war related activities.
This is also why trotsky saw no issues with using the acquired knowledge of old Imperial Army officers, because he was very much aware that without that knowledge currently existing revolutionary army (mostly partisan/guerilla in nature) cannot progress, evolve into the potent military force (capable of any type of assignments) and finally stand against the enemy states (whose armies are seen by Trotsky as professional and very experienced no matter the political forces running them). As history shows this merger of old, what might be called standard military knowledge, and new revolutionary approach to war would enable the Soviet Army to win WW2.
Again, very interesting book, surprisingly clear headed and practical when it comes to warfare. As a matter of fact Trotsky's comments how mixing (or as he says muddling) military works with philosophical and political dogma will always end up in disaster, sound very true even today.
Highly recommended.
November 1, 2025
Trotsky was People's Commissar of War (a more hands-on version of what the US, in Orwellian fashion, calls Secretary of Defense) during the Russian Civil War, which followed the Revolution and up until 1925. They had to fight on dozens of different fronts against not only counterrevolutionary Russians, but against the major imperialist powers (including a small US intervention), as well as countries like Poland.
While there is a 5-volume set 'How the Revolution Armed Itself,' I suggest instead this small book of writings, some of which were taken from that, and others written after the end of the Civil War. It discusses general lessons to be learned for similar circumstances, which as internationalists they expected to see. It's brilliant, but at the same time quite readable. There is a preface by George Breitman, and as an introduction there is an essay by Karl Radek, "The Organizer of Victory."
This stands alongside such books as Literature and Revolution and the essays collected in Problems of Everyday Life: Creating the Foundations for a New Society in Revolutionary Russia.
While there is a 5-volume set 'How the Revolution Armed Itself,' I suggest instead this small book of writings, some of which were taken from that, and others written after the end of the Civil War. It discusses general lessons to be learned for similar circumstances, which as internationalists they expected to see. It's brilliant, but at the same time quite readable. There is a preface by George Breitman, and as an introduction there is an essay by Karl Radek, "The Organizer of Victory."
This stands alongside such books as Literature and Revolution and the essays collected in Problems of Everyday Life: Creating the Foundations for a New Society in Revolutionary Russia.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews