answersLogoWhite

0

Really, it depends on what you consider a "good leader" to be. If you believe that unifying the people of the country makes you a better leader, then yes, he was a good leader in that respect. He was a change from the unpopular Tsarist regime (and the interim government - aka the Provisional Government). He was once described as being a man of iron will and inflexible ambition (The Times, 1924). However, his communist ideas causes Civil War - so in that case, no, he was not a good leader.

So really it depends what you consider to be a good leader. Unified people or good policy. For example, David Cameron may not be popular for raising the cap on tuition fees, but when Britain recovers from the recession, we'll be glad of his austerity measures.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago

What else can I help you with?