Similarly, interpretations of Trotsky appear unbalanced when considering his role as a propagandist through his oratorical skills and writing, which allowed for him to be viewed as a great Bolshevik figurehead, whilst Soviet Realism effectively eliminated his significance within history, and vilified him. Within his role as Commissar for War, however, offers a more balanced opinion as it is widely regarded both during his time and in more contemporary times that he was incredibly fit for the role, however there are still interpretations that vary from the romanticised notion of Trotsky as War Commissar.
Therefore it can be considered that when considering different aspects of his life, the extent of a balanced interpretation varies, however that overall history offers a limited balanced interpretation of Trotsky, as within each segment of his life, there is no real mutual consensus, as differing contexts and agendas behind documenting history aim to colour Trotsky in different ways.
Historiography allows for these differing opinions to be recognised as due to the different contexts and agendas behind historians for documenting Trotsky’s history, as history is a humanised process and thus flaws can be evident within the differing interpretations of Trotsky’s character. Trotsky’s role as a Marxist has generated far from a balanced interpretation, as he is viewed as both an inventive, evolutionary Marxist yet also contrastingly viewed as someone with a lust for violence, terror and dictatorship.
The concept of Balance of Power is a tenet of Realism that seeks to explain the formation of alliances in international relations. This is done in the context that Realism as a Theory argues that states as actors in the international system act out of self interest, need to survive in a hostile environment and to maximise profit. Balance of Power can be understood best when one looks at ...
Smolensky regards Trotsky as, not only as equal to Lenin as a theoretician, but that he was an inventive Marxist, adapting Marxism in a way so as to “predict the future outcome” of the Revolution with “great accuracy”. Smolensky also defends Kautsky’s critique of Trotsky as a Marxist, stating that they had a clash of trends in Marxism, “one evolutionary and democratic, the other revolutionary apologetically undemocratic. ” The view of Trotsky in such a favourable manner hints that Smolensky’s evaluation of Trotsky as a Marxist is coloured y Trotskyism, as he defends him against negative outlooks and over romanticises his actions. Thus the source offers bias, due to the agenda of Trotskyist historians in viewing Trotsky with a more positive and favourable interpretation. Thatcher explains that Smolensky “does not detract from the praise heaped upon Trotsky”, which expresses a bias and therefore a limitedly balanced interpretation of Trotsky, as it is overly romanticised. Furthermore, the limited nature of the balanced interpretations of Trotsky as a Marxist becomes highlighted through his role as a Civil War.