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

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

TaigaTaiga
Every great hero faces trials, and you—yes, YOU—are no exception!
Chat with Taiga
EzraEzra
Faith is not about having all the answers, but learning to ask the right questions.
Chat with Ezra
DevinDevin
I've poured enough drinks to know that people don't always want advice—they just want to talk.
Chat with Devin
More answers

It's simple really he wanted a new Russia a clean Russia and for the most part he did but then Stalin screwed it up with Stalinism.in reality the Soviet Union was not communist for that long

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why was Vladimir Lenin a good leader?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp