In the literature, the assertion is often made that the creator of the Red Army, People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs Lev Davidovich Trotsky (who is in the photo on the left wearing the signature Red Army "Budenovka" helmet) was a very capable, even outstanding speaker. Some authors write this way - Trotsky was a great orator. Does this opinion correspond to reality?

On the one hand, Trotsky’s fame as an orator is confirmed by the fact that his opponents were very much afraid of the impact of Trotsky’s speeches and articles on the population, and in order to neutralize this impact, Stalin’s supporters used a fairly effective technique to undermine trust in a political opponent - ridicule and ridicule.

Thus, in the late 1920s - early 1930s, through the agents of the OGPU, the popular obscene expression was launched into the people - “fuck like Trotsky.” The Soviet people were very fond of rude jokes, this expression began to be used with or without reason, and even after the collapse of the USSR, in the mid-1990s, it was heard at the everyday level. Well, naturally, they subconsciously stopped trusting Trotsky and the Trotskyists.

But the most correct and unbiased idea of ​​Trotsky’s oratorical abilities can only be obtained after listening to an authentic recording of his speech. Fortunately, one of Lev Davidovich Trotsky’s speeches was recorded on a gramophone record; it was restored and transferred to digital mp3 format.

At the end of the article there is a link to download an audio recording of Trotsky’s speech, you can download it and listen to how the voice of the leader of the Red Army sounded, but for now a small analysis of this preserved speech, as well as oratorical techniques and specific features voices of L.D. Trotsky.

Recorded speech by L.D. Trotsky dates back to April 1919, and is dedicated to the theme of uniting the disparate parts of the collapsed Russian Empire into a single fraternal union of Soviet republics - this speech was officially called “Brotherly Union of Soviet Republics”.

Trotsky was the first of the Soviet leaders to propose uniting the individual republics into a fraternal union, but other Bolshevik leaders did not initially support this proposal, and in practice his idea of ​​​​creating a union was realized only on December 30, 1922, when the USSR was formed - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

And at the end of his speech, L.D. Trotsky gives a forecast as to how the revolution should end in Germany (where the Bavarian Soviet Republic was created on April 13, 1919) and World revolution in general - “And there will be a single soviet republic of all peoples!

At that time there were no “speechwriters”, and our politicians wrote their speeches themselves. Trotsky's speech, which can be downloaded from the link at the end of the article, was not only voiced, but also written by him, and is one of his most famous speeches.

From a purely literary and substantive point of view, the speech of L.D. Trotsky is quite logical, consistent, very convincing, it does not contain any “blunders” that are so characteristic of some modern politicians.

However, Trotsky is very badly let down by his voice, which spoils the entire impression of the content of his speech. Trotsky speaks forcefully, without hesitation, in a fighting style, but the very timbre and defects of his voice make the sound of his speech not very pleasant.

Firstly, judging by the recording of his voice, Trotsky lisped a little, although not as much as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, but still sometimes it becomes noticeable, and although during the speech it is felt that the speaker is struggling with this shortcoming, the sound “r” ” tries to pronounce correctly, but this does not always work.

Secondly, Trotsky had problems with the pronunciation of some other sounds, for example, he pronounces the word “nations” as “nations”; there are also a number of other, less pronounced speech defects.

And, finally, fourthly, Trotsky’s voice itself is extremely unpleasant - just purely humanly very unpleasant, to say the least. Be sure to listen to the recording yourself (you can download it at the bottom of the article using the link), and if you like Comrade Trotsky’s voice, I will be very, very surprised.

And when you listen to Trotsky’s voice, you simply involuntarily get the feeling that this is not an orator, but some kind of walking caricature. Now try to imagine yourself as a professional political strategist. And now the customer expresses his wish to you:

“We need to choose someone to play the role of a caricatured villain. So that you can blame absolutely anything on him and accuse him of anything. For example, to declare that he committed the most terrible crimes against all of humanity or against some people, and so that everyone would believe it. But at the same time, he must arouse distrust in himself, so that everyone has the impression of him being frivolous, and so that he simply evokes some kind of instinctive disgust towards himself. So that by the mere fact of his involvement in something, he can compromise this “something” with a guarantee. And if suddenly he expresses some idea, everyone will immediately oppose this idea. After all, it is he who expresses it. Well, if he leads some kind of opposition, so that everyone from this opposition will immediately run away and turn away from it - because with such a head you cannot do a normal thing, you will only get into something. That is, we need a caricatured villain, guilty of everything, and compromising absolutely everything by the very fact of his involvement.”

So, you can’t find anyone better than Trotsky to play the role of such a “caricatured villain.” Just listen to the recording of his speech, listen to this voice, this accent, these howls, and you will understand everything yourself.

None of the actors who played the role of Trotsky in the movies were able to portray his voice close to reality. Most likely, they didn’t even have any idea about it.

You can download a recording of Trotsky's speech for free.

Trotsky's eloquence, his ability to suppress the arguments of his opponents with irony or a caustic joke, to add emotional colors to his speech, adding his fresh impressions brought from Siberia and the South of Russia, allowed him to win an undeniable victory in the debates that took place in London's White Chapel. Now Trotsky furiously defended Marxism, which he had attacked for so long during the debates in the Shvigovsky circle. Later, Trotsky wrote mockingly about the opponents he defeated: “I was sincerely surprised at the childish arguments with which the venerable elders crushed Marxism.”

Trotsky recalled: “I returned in very high spirits; I didn’t feel the pavement under my soles at all.” Trotsky, who was hovering mentally above the earth, had reason to feel delighted. It is not known whether he was aware of it or not, but during this speech his oratorical talent was publicly revealed for the first time, which served him faithfully throughout the rest of his turbulent career. political life. But then one thing was clear to Trotsky: after his success at White Chapel, his oratorical abilities were not only recognized in the highest circles of Social Democracy, but were also in demand.

Veterans of Social Democracy were delighted with the success of the newcomer. The party leaders knew very well that Russia was on the threshold of great revolutionary events, and the revolutionary party still lived by the habits of dry academic debates in narrow circles of like-minded people. In the new environment, people were needed who were capable of suppressing opponents with ridicule and contempt, igniting the hearts of doubters with bright speech and inspiring like-minded people with colorful pictures of a bright future.

Lenin and his colleagues could sense in Trotsky a keen ability to capture the mood of his audience, inspire confidence in people and direct their thoughts. They could not help but admit that it was not their refined Marxism, but a mixture of Marxist concepts and newspaper clichés about the achievements of progress, general discussions about the dangers of lawlessness and backwardness in Trotsky’s monologues about Russia and the revolution that were more understandable to the mass audience.

Of course, Lenin, Zasulich and others could not help but notice the superficiality of Trotsky’s knowledge of Marxist theory. Under other conditions, they could have mercilessly attacked his vulgarization of ideology, his shallow understanding of the political experience of the party. But now one could turn a blind eye to these shortcomings. Moreover, the categorical judgments of Trotsky, the harshness of his expressions and manners, were perceived by the party leaders from the point of view of how this could be used in the struggle for the minds of the masses. The conclusion of almost all experienced party members could be unequivocal: these shortcomings turned into advantages for the party leader in the conditions of the approaching revolutionary storm.

The connection between social upheaval and the flowering of oratory has long been noticed. For this reason, Michel Montaigne severely condemned the art of oratory, noting: “This tool, invented in order to excite the crowd and control the disordered community, is used, like medicine, only in unhealthy state organisms... Eloquence flourished most in Rome when it were shaken by the storms of the civil war, just as weeds grow most luxuriantly in an uncultivated and neglected field.”

It is no coincidence that the French Revolution produced a whole galaxy of famous speakers, such as Marat, Robespierre, Danton. At the beginning of the 20th century, brilliant speakers appeared primarily in those countries that were experiencing acute socio-political crises.

Trotsky spent his entire life carefully studying the characteristics of the eloquence of many remarkable orators of his time. He began studying public speaking while still in Shvigovsky's circle, when, imitating his idol Lassalle, he discovered his desire to become a first-class orator. Then he carefully studied the techniques of oratory from Schopenhauer’s book “The Art of Debating.” Deutscher wrote that, apart from this attempt to master eloquence with the help of Schopenhauer, Trotsky did not specifically try to learn oratorical techniques. However, this did not mean that he did not think about the oratory field. Even Mukhin’s story about how he convinced workers of the need to start fighting against the tsarist regime with a handful of beans was taken note by Leiba Bronstein as an example of a successful speech in a mass audience. Subsequently, he multiplied his observations, collecting throughout his life a whole collection of personal impressions of the oral performances of various speakers. In his sketches from life, Trotsky tried to pay attention to the smallest details in their speeches, often describing in great detail the speaker’s gestures, facial expressions, and speech characteristics.

This is how Trotsky described Lenin’s speech: “The first phrases are usually general, the tone is groping, the whole figure seems to have not found balance, the gesture is not formalized, the gaze has gone into itself, there is rather gloominess in the face and, as it were, even annoyance - the thought is looking for an approach to the audience. This introductory period lasts longer or shorter, depending on the audience, the topic, and the speaker’s mood. But then he got stuck. A theme begins to emerge. The speaker leans his upper body forward, placing his thumbs behind the cutouts of his vest. And from this double movement, the head and arms immediately protrude forward... The arms are very mobile, but without fussiness and nervousness... The voice softened, gained greater flexibility and - at times - a sly insinuation.”

“But now the speaker brings up an alleged objection on behalf of the enemy or a malicious quotation from an article by the enemy. Before he can make out the hostile thought, he lets you know that the objection is unfounded, superficial or false. He frees his fingers from the cutouts of his vest, leans his body back slightly, steps back in small steps, as if to make room for himself to accelerate, and - sometimes ironically, sometimes with a look of despair - shrugs his steep shoulders and spreads his arms, expressively holding his thumbs out. Condemnation of the enemy, ridicule or disgrace of him - depending on the enemy and the occasion - always precedes his refutation. The listener is, as it were, informed in advance what type of proof he should expect and what tone to set his thoughts to. After this, a logical offensive opens. The left hand either falls back into the vest neckline, or, more often, into the trouser pocket. The right follows the logic of thought and notes its rhythm. At the right moments, the left one comes to the rescue. The speaker rushes towards the audience, reaches the edge of the stage, leans forward and, with rounded movements of his hands, works on his own verbal material. This means that it has come to the central thought, to the main point of the whole speech.”

It is absolutely clear that so detailed analysis The behavior of the speaker on the podium could be done either by the author of a manual on eloquence, or by a person who sought to comprehend this art by independent observation. Trotsky analyzed the speeches of other speakers of the early 20th century in a similar way. Here is Trotsky’s story about the leader of the French socialists Jaurès: “On the podium he seems huge, and yet he is below average height... As an orator he is incomparable and incomparable. His speech lacks that complete sophistication, sometimes annoying, that Vandervelde shines with. In logical irresistibility he cannot compare with Bebel. The evil, poison-filled irony of Victor Adler is alien to him. But he has enough temperament, passion, and enthusiasm for all of them... For the French, oratorical technique is a common heritage, which they take without effort and outside of which they are unthinkable, like a “cultured” person without a dress. Every French speaker speaks well. But it is all the more difficult for a Frenchman to be a great orator. And that’s Jaurès. It is not his rich technique, not his huge voice that amazes like a miracle, not the free generosity of his gestures, but the brilliant naivety of his enthusiasm - this is what connects Jaurès with the masses and makes him what he is.”

Trotsky knew how to find the strengths in a wide variety of speakers and analyzed them in detail. Analyzing the features of Viktor Adler’s oratory, he noted: “Adler is a very special speaker. Anyone who expects from a speaker picturesque images, a powerful voice, a variety of gestures, stormy pathos, let him listen to Jaurès. Whoever demands from an orator an exquisite completeness of style and the same completeness of gesture, let him listen to Vandrevelde. Adler will give neither one nor the other. He has a good, inner voice, but not strong, and besides, Adler does not control his voice: he squanders it wastefully and at the end of his speech he wheezes and coughs. His gestures are not rich, although very expressive. It should also be added that Adler stutters quite badly, especially at the beginning of his speech. But at the same time, he is one of the most remarkable speakers in Europe.”

What is Adler's strength as a speaker, according to Trotsky? “Adler’s strongest weapon is his irony, deep, because it is filled with moral content, and at the same time, publicly accessible, worldly apt. As a controversial speaker, Adler is unattainable. He does not neglect, of course, the occasional, minor mistake of the enemy, but his main task is always to reveal the main capital stupidity. Exactly stupidity... And when he speaks, choosing words for his thoughts and accompanying his work with the play of his face, which is illuminated by flashes of irony, then even the organic defect of his speech seems necessary: ​​short pauses, which take him to cope with his stuttering, seem to bring the listener closer to creative work speaker, “as if the material persists, not immediately giving in to the cutter.”

In these notes by Trotsky, the reader learns almost nothing about the content of the speeches or their ideological orientation. Although in these sketches one can learn about the tone, timbre of the voice, even the stuttering of the speakers, not a word from their speeches is given. Obviously, Trotsky was not very interested in the content of the speech. This is no coincidence. Trotsky came to the conviction that the speaker should make speeches that will give impetus not to thoughts, but to action. He wrote: “Is any other logic valuable in speech other than the logic that compels action?” “Logic that compels action” was present, in his opinion, primarily in gestures, the rhythm of speech, and its emotional coloring.

The experience of his own speeches convinced Trotsky that necessary words the speaker finds intuitively. To do this, it was necessary to achieve emotional contact with the audience. Later, recalling his speeches at rallies in 1917 in the Petrograd circus “Modern”, Trotsky wrote: “At moments it seemed that you felt with your lips the demanding inquisitiveness of this crowd that had merged together. Then the arguments and words planned in advance were forgotten, retreated under the imperative pressure of sympathy, and from under the hood other words, other arguments, unexpected for the speaker, but necessary for the masses, emerged fully armed. And then it seemed as if you were listening to the speaker a little from the side, not keeping up with him in thought and only worrying that he, like a somnambulist, would not fall off the ledge from the voice of his reasoning.”

Political silhouettes. (From the democratic meeting). III. Maria Spiridonova. Trotsky. // Kyiv Thought. K., 1917. No. 233, September 27 (October 10), p. 1 .
Last part essay Political silhouettes. (From the democratic meeting), see also: I. A.F. Kerensky. // Kyiv Thought. K., 1917. No. 228, September 21 (October 4). With. 1; II. V.M. Chernov. Yu. Kamenev. I.G. Tsereteli. // Kyiv Thought. K., 1917. No. 229, September 22 (October 5), p. 1.
(...)
Trotsky rises to the podium, greeted by stormy applause from the entire left.
Trotsky... This is the name that the public now repeats more often than all other names. A name that has already gathered around itself huge catalogs of admiration and abuse. Belonging to a person who is certainly interesting, strong and... strange.
In the dark building of the human soul there is one very dark corner where the stones from which Trotsky’s psychology is composed rest.
And he's all kind of dark. Large, black head. Long, slicked back black hair. A narrow, black beard, sharply protruding forward, like Mephistopheles of Antokolsky. Thick, black eyebrows. And a dark face, as if pale with anger, with sharp, piercing eyes like nails, in which the reflection of his ironic mind can be seen through the glasses of the pince-nez. The large, predatory mouth with predatory teeth, like those of a shark, stands out unpleasantly.
Trotsky's oratorical talent is obvious and undeniable.
The speaker is required to be able to instill, at will, this or that belief in the minds of his audience.
Trotsky possesses this gift to a high degree and uses his art with amazing skill and perfection.
In his artistic rendering, shining with the finest finishing of intonation, words take on new meanings and, fertilized by his oratorical temperament, shimmer with bright colors.
However, the word “paint” does not suit Trotsky’s sculptural eloquence. He cannot be called a colorist. And his speeches are not painting or music, but plastic. Plasticity is strange and exciting, like living bronze.
When he speaks, he crouches slightly, draws his head into his shoulders, quickly straightens up and, vigorously stretching his arm forward, seems to throw handfuls of words at the audience. The latter burst from his caustic lips in raging ranks and rush into battle in a widely deployed formation, like regiments rushing to attack.
This is the external impression from his stormy speeches. There is so much movement, trepidation and noisy confidence in his words.
But Trotsky is not only a talented speaker. Trotsky is a great politician. Not an amateur, not a politician by trade, but a politician by passion. Trotsky has a lot of intelligence and knowledge. He traveled all over the world. I studied everywhere and looked at everything with interest.
Having tasted abundantly from all the civilizations of Europe, experienced in all political intrigues, Trotsky understands everything, but loves little.
Trotsky is deeply indifferent to the people of today, with their dark, melancholy souls and real blood. The world with all its passions and greatest tragedies is depicted in his mind as a spectacular performance of continuously warring elements, in which he, citizen Trotsky, is destined and prepared for the role of Lassalle.
Trotsky must be firmly convinced that he was born to be the Russian Lassalle, and strenuously drapes himself in the latter's political cloak.
I do not undertake to either deny or establish this similarity and do not get to the bottom of the pedigree of his political ideas. Perhaps Trotsky really owes his oratorical techniques and other words to Lassalle. But he traveled too much to be a patriot and Lassalle.
For Lassalle is, first of all, a patriot, and a patriot is, first of all, a person who passionately feels and is madly in love with his native land. And the international suitcase of citizen Trotsky, with whom the latter traveled all over Europe, is filled with any kind of luggage, but not with the ashes of his native land. There is too little room for such sentimental items in the cold machinery of his international heart.
Trotsky has a cold mind and an even colder heart, but is gifted with iron perseverance. All his thoughts and words are imbued with this persistence. It gives his attacks enormous impact power. At the same time, Trotsky masters all shades of sarcasm, leaving a trace of murderous, burning poison on everything his caustic word touches. Caustic, persistent, witty - Trotsky knows no mercy and strikes without fail.
But his angry, mocking blows are often dictated not by the search for truth, but by completely different motives. Trotsky willingly introduces a lot of personal elements into his polemical attacks. Trotsky does not limit his civic sympathies and his political platform to Russia. But the universe often remains enclosed for him within the boundaries of his own personality. And in order to ensure the latter a strong place on the world stage and, even more often, to evoke a smile of approval in the listeners, Trotsky turns all his talent into a game of wit - evil, vain and paradoxical wit.
Trotsky's vanity is all-consuming, insatiable. He puts his desire, his personal success above ideas. Trotsky is never able to turn into a slave of an idea. But the thirst for applause often turns him into a servile demagogue and directs his boastful wit to malicious and shameless antics.
- Where the propertied classes cannot take all the power, and the people’s power does not dare to take power, there the idea of ​​a dictator, Bonaparte, Napoleon is born. That is why Kerensky took the place he now occupies. The vacancy for Kerensky was opened by the weakness and indecisiveness of revolutionary democracy.
You had to hear what sarcasm, what burning hatred these words were filled with in order to appreciate the full power of this unambiguous demagogic blow. And this is often the case with Trotsky. Under the influence of personal bitterness, his sharp word turns into a steel knife, mercilessly cutting into two, with pleasure quartering the good name of his opponents.
At such moments, Trotsky’s boastful vanity, his penchant for buffoonery, and his evil, skeptical attitude towards all of humanity are revealed, in short: all those dark corners that I spoke about at the beginning and in which Trotsky’s quagmire psychology nests.
At such moments, Trotsky does not hesitate to resort to both foul-smelling hints and political juggling.
His speeches cease to be political pamphlet speeches, but turn into politics with an admixture of dirt.
The very tone of his speeches sounds as if he was created for boastful, deafening, deliberately provoked scandals. And that is why Trotsky is one of the most prolific inventors of Bolshevik “incidents” at the meeting.

People with public speaking skills always easily acquire the status of a leader among friends and colleagues, and quickly achieve success in many matters. It is impossible to imagine a politician who cannot speak logically and structuredly. Throughout human history, there have been people whose oratory skills reached an outstanding level. Such people can rightly be called great orators.

Oratory began its development in Ancient Greece, the secrets of which are still used today. There were already quite a lot of people who could speak beautifully at that time. The list of outstanding figures includes such great orators as Pericles, Cicero, Lysias, Demosthenes, Aristotle and others. In particular, Lysias and Demosthenes should be highlighted, since it was these great orators that all subsequent generations looked up to.

Lysias was an excellent judicial orator of ancient times, whose speeches were always distinguished by originality, expressiveness and uniqueness. He thought through and carefully worked out every detail of his text. Irony was often present in the speeches of this speaker, which aroused great sympathy among the audience. At the same time, the speech was always brief and did not contain anything superfluous. Lysias's speech is considered a standard for orators around the world. Many speakers who spoke in court took their cue from him, borrowing his style of eloquence.

Another great orator whom many public figures looked up to was Demosthenes. This man is considered a genius, because in order to become a speaker, he had to change a lot in himself. From birth, Demosthenes had a weak voice and short breathing.

Through long and rigorous training using a variety of techniques, he was able to achieve brilliant results and became one of the best speakers of all time. One could only envy his diction, beautiful and understandable speech. The speeches of this famous speaker were bright, his expressions were short and concise.

Famous speakers abroad

In foreign countries there are many famous great speakers who were distinguished by their excellent ability to structure their speech during speeches so that people did not doubt their beliefs. The most outstanding personalities include two prominent political figures:

Adolf Gitler

Despite all his devilish essence, this man was a powerful speaker who, while speaking, always kept the masses in suspense and full attention. In his speeches, he used sharp hand gestures, spoke emotionally and even rudely. In his speeches there was such a feature as the use of long pauses in order to emphasize something important and basic.

He prepared his speech in advance, writing everything down on paper. Hitler was not known for his restraint, so he often gave vent to his emotions, splashing them out on his listeners. People were attracted by the fact that he sometimes spoke slowly and sometimes quickly. Therefore, he used this technique in every speech. Despite the fact that his ideas were often evil and wrong, the people supported him. In this regard, Hitler is called the speaker of evil. Despite all the dark side of this man, he always ends up on the list - “The Greatest Speakers of the 20-21st Century”.

Winston Churchill

This politician always prepared in advance for each of his speeches, even thinking through his facial expressions and gestures. He worked out the text so that it was perfect. This man was distinguished by charisma and often used humor in his speech.

He was so inspired by his ideas that he could infect the entire people with them. When composing the text, he actively used such artistic techniques as metaphor and comparison. During the communication process, Churchill tried to be calm and behave naturally. From birth he had a speech defect such as a lisp, however, over time he managed to get rid of it.

Russian speakers

In Russia, too, there have always been famous outstanding speakers, which include such famous personalities as Kony, Trotsky, Zhirinovsky, Putin and others.

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni

Anatoly Fedorovich was engaged in legal and social activities at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. He urged everyone to maintain morality in the legal process. Kony's speech was always lively and dynamic, never sounding monotonous.

He believed that speakers speaking in court should be fair and defend the truth. In his speeches, Kony was not dry, but gave free rein to his emotions. But he knew how to combine facts with feelings so that the text had a positive impact on the minds of the judges. This speaker's defense speech left no doubt that the verdict would be pronounced in his favor.

Anatoly Fedorovich Koni had high individual and socially significant moral qualities, followed the rules of honor, always delivered his speech clearly, without using terminology unknown to others, and was fluent in eloquence.

Lev Davidovich Trotsky

Many people said that Lev Davidovich is the best speaker of the 20th century. He had a powerful timbre of his voice, his words were pronounced clearly and understandably. He was an intelligent and active man who was feared by many opponents. The great orator himself did not feel fear of a single person, so he said everything to his face, without hiding anything.

Trotsky's speech was always structured consistently, logically and briefly. He was good at convincing people, so he had a large number of associates. His gift of eloquence was clearly visible during political speeches.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Great orators of the 20th century - this list should undoubtedly include Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich gave speeches that were accessible and understandable to every representative of the people. He had a great sense of people's mood, so he could entice them with almost any idea. Most of all, he used dialogue, communicating with people, answering their questions.

His speech was distinguished by brevity and specificity. He also used directing hand gestures, which only increased his influence on people. Lenin had a charisma that attracted all listening people. His phrases became catchphrases, they were used by other people and published in publications.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Vladimir Vladimirovich is perhaps the most famous Russian political speaker of our time. He speaks easily, using a bit of humor in his speech. His speeches are always well thought out and contain nothing superfluous. The gestures of the hands are smooth, which does not distract people’s attention at all, and once again emphasizes confidence.

This politician is distinguished by restraint and calmness when communicating with people or colleagues, not allowing himself to say a harsh or rude word. He always answers people’s questions clearly, as he is well versed in many areas of life.

Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky

Vladimir Volfovich is distinguished by the fact that his speech is always accompanied by emotional overtones, it is unpredictable and even sometimes has some aggressiveness. His performances are more like a show. He often puts pressure on his interlocutor with his words and uses energetic gestures.

Zhirinovsky has strong charisma. But he is not only a great orator, but a very smart and fair politician. Vladimir Volfovich can easily start a dispute, as he understands any topic. He is not distinguished by restraint, he always says what he thinks, expresses his emotions, and can often allow himself to say too much to focus attention on his person.

All the best speakers in the world mentioned above are not the entire list of outstanding masters of eloquence (let’s not forget about such great speakers as James Humes, Abraham Lincoln, Steve Jobs, etc.). It is difficult to answer the question of who is the best speaker of all time. Some people had the gift of eloquence from birth, while others a long way, overcoming your speech impediments and acquiring public speaking skills, becoming great. But one thing can be said for everyone: thanks to their wonderful eloquence, they were able to become famous figures in public and political life.

Stalin vs. Trotsky Shcherbakov Alexey Yurievich

Booed speaker

Booed speaker

But this also turned out badly. So, on October 1, 1926, a representative group of comrades - Trotsky, Zinoviev, Pyatakov, Radek, Smilga, Sapronov showed up at the Aviapribor plant and began making speeches there. And what? We learned the following. The cell’s resolution contained a demand for the Moscow Party Committee to “take decisive measures to combat the opposition, without stopping at organizational measures.”

And it was like that everywhere. During the week from October 1 to October 8, discussions took place in many party cells at enterprises in Moscow and Leningrad. 87,388 people took part in them. And the opposition was supported by... 496 comrades. But in the two capitals the positions of the oppositionists were strongest. Especially in Leningrad.

But the main bummer was waiting for Trotsky. He was an excellent speaker and was accustomed to holding any audience. Of course, he tried to use his main weapon. The result was catastrophic. The weapon no longer worked.

“For the first time in almost thirty years, for the first time since he began his career as a revolutionary orator, Trotsky found himself standing helpless before a crowd. His most compelling arguments, his genius of persuasion, his powerful, metallic voice did not help in the face of the indignant roar that greeted him. The insults to which other speakers were subjected were even more brutal. It is clear that the opposition’s first joint appeal to party opinion ended in failure.”

(Isaac Deicher)

And this was very serious. After all, it is always easier to criticize, especially for a good speaker. But... There was nothing to say! And the “party masses” are tired of it! So Trotsky and Zinoviev were forced to send a letter to the Politburo, in which they declared their refusal to further discuss. To avoid embarrassment. However, this does not mean that the opposition has no supporters left. There are a lot of them left. But to work with them, other methods were required. It hasn't come to that yet.

The defeat of the opposition led to the fact that at the XV Party Conference, which opened on October 26, only the lazy did not kick them. Bukharin was especially zealous.

As a result of the results of the comrades, the dissenters were moved again. Trotsky was thrown out of the Politburo, Kamenev ceased to be a candidate there. However, they were left in the Central Committee. As we see, in the 20s, Stalin and his supporters were not so merciless. Still, ours...

Meanwhile, the international position of the USSR became greatly complicated. In 1926, the largest strike in British history took place - the miners' strike. A forgery was published in England under the title “Zinoviev’s Letter” (the falsity was later proven), which gave instructions on how to organize a world revolution. In the end, the strike was crushed.

On February 23, 1927, the famous note of the English Prime Minister Austin Chembrelin appeared, in an openly boorish form. It smelled of war.

There was no war, but everyone fought violently. Remember the immortal novel by Ilf and Petrov “The Twelve Chairs”, which takes place in 1927. The ease with which, in general, solid and happy with life people go to the “Union of Sword and Ploughshare” created by Ostap Bender is explained precisely by the fact that those who joined it believed: the war would soon begin, and the Bolshevik regime would collapse. The authors of the novel were professional journalists, they described what they saw.

At the same time, another trouble happened for the USSR government. In China there was a sluggish Civil War, in which the Bolsheviks supported the Kuomintang party, with which the then few Chinese communists were in a blockade. However, in 1927, one of the leaders of the Kuomintang, Chiang Kai-shek, carried out a coup in Nanjing and began to massacre the communists. It turned out unpleasant.

The opposition took advantage of all this. The main thesis was accusing the country's leadership of “opportunism.”

"Chinese communist party was, against her will, brought into the bourgeois Kuomintang party and subjected to its military discipline. The creation of Soviets was prohibited. The communists were advised to contain the agrarian revolution and not arm the workers without the permission of the bourgeoisie. Long before Chiang Kai-shek crushed the Shanghai workers and concentrated power in the hands of the military clique, we warned of the inevitability of this outcome. Since 1925, I have demanded that the Communists leave the Kuomintang. The policy of Stalin-Bukharin not only prepared and facilitated the defeat of the revolution, but, with the help of repressions by the state apparatus, insured Chiang Kai-shek’s counter-revolutionary work from our criticism.”

(L. D. Trotsky)

About the same thing was said about the English workers - they say that it was necessary to more actively support their most radical part. That is, Stalin was accused of evading assistance to the international revolutionary movement. The oppositionists stated: the increased hostility of England was caused precisely by the passivity of the Soviet leadership.

It was in this spirit that Zinoviev spoke on May 9, 1927 in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, and the speech was broadcast on the radio. Although the event was dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the newspaper Pravda, Zinoviev quickly lost his international position. Apparently, he decided not to miss the chance to speak to such a large audience. On May 10, the bureau of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU (b) and on May 11, the bureau of the Leningrad Committee of the CPSU (b) regarded this demarche as “the greatest crime against the party, violating the promise to end the factional struggle given by Zinoviev and other leaders in the statement of October 16, 1926, as unheard of.” violation of party discipline."

The game started again. Again from a collective letter. This time it was signed by 83 people. The main signatories were the same.

“Serious mistakes made in the leadership of the Chinese revolution contributed to a severe defeat, from which one can only recover by returning to the path of Lenin.”

At the same time, the letter included populist calls in the form of raising wages for all workers.

The opposition was accused of finding the wrong time to get involved. In response, Trotsky referred to the French politician Georges Clemenceau. During the World War, he fought against the government, despite the fact that the Germans were 80 kilometers from Paris. (Clemenceau later became prime minister.)

Stalin responded: “If the enemy approaches the walls of the Kremlin within 80 kilometers, then this newly-minted Clemenceau, this operetta Clemenceau, will try, it turns out, to first overthrow the current majority precisely because the enemy stands 80 kilometers from the Kremlin, and then take up the defense. And if our operetta Clemenceau manages to do this, then this, it turns out, will be the real and unconditional defense of the USSR.”

And Stalin foresaw some of Trotsky’s later views!

This time it ended in a draw. The oppositionists wrote a statement of repentance. In response to accusations of being too soft, Stalin replied: “No, comrades, we need a truce, you are mistaken here. If we take examples, it would be better to take the example of Gogol’s Osip, who said: “Rope?” - “Let’s go here, and the rope will come in handy.” We are not so rich in resources and not so strong as to neglect the rope.”