• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11

Historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov have made the interpretation that Lenin was a dictator.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Historians such as Pipes and Volkogonov have made the interpretation that Lenin was a dictator. As he adopted policies such as War Communism and the establishment of the Cheka. However their historical accounts can be challenged, due to their personal opinions. Other historians, such as Hill, believe that Lenin was not a dictator, as his policies were imposed on him by the Russian circumstances. Thus Lenin was not a dictator, as he was merely responding to the harsh Russian circumstances and was able to adopt flexible policies such as NEP. Lenin has been seen as a dictator through his centralisation of the state by 1924. This is because a centralised one-party dictatorship governed Soviet Russia. The Politburo became the Bolshevik organisation, which dominated government institutions and the main decision-making. Also Lenin's decision to form an entirely new body of government, the Sovnakom, while the Soviet existed and should have been made as the main body of government, showed that Lenin had no intention of sharing power with other socialist groups in the Soviet. The Sovnakom ruled by decree without going to the Soviet for approval. Thus the centralisation of the state in Russia can be seen as dictatorial as it limited the political influence of other political groups, while it strengthened the authority of the Bolshevik, through the establishment of Sovnakom, which Lenin chaired. Pipes is one of the Historians who believe that the centralisation of power had allowed Lenin to create a "one-party dictatorship"1, as " Lenin's party was a precursor of a new type of political organisation that would be emulated before long by mass-based dictators"2. Thus this historian is suggesting that Lenin creation of the Sovnakom, allowed his party to rule Russia through dictatorial means. This opinion is to an extent true, as the creation of the Sovnakom showed that the main decision making was taken by the Bolshevik centre with little account taken of other political viewpoints. ...read more.

Middle

Other historians also believe that Lenin was in a threat from the first moment he come into power, thus he needed to use terror in order to protect his authority. This view is supported by Liebman, who believes that "Lenin's motive- to defend the soviet power against the attacks of counter revolutionaries"13, led him to use terror as he was facing opposition from 1917. This is proven by the fact that the opposition to Lenin came both from within Russia and from outside Russia. On 10 November 1917 the Morning Post in London called for direct military action against the Bolsheviks, also as the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 Kerensky and General Krasnov attempted to rally an army onto Petrograd in November 1917. This therefore shows that Lenin faced opposition and a terror threat from the first moment he came to power, thus he merely responded to this terror. Overall, Lenin used the Red Terror as a response to the terror that already existed in Russia when he had come to power. Lenin established the Red Terror after he had faced threats from both within Russia and from foreign intervention, thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin did not establish terror for personal interest and to control all political opposition, he established the terror in order to deal with terrorist opposition in the same way any regime would. The use of the CHEKA is also viewed by Service as a temporary measure, he believes that "Lenin believed that the need for such an organisation would be only temporary...Lenin did not at this stage call for a campaign of extensive mass terror"14. This view is right, as Lenin saw the CHEKA as a temporary measure to protect the Bolshevik regime during its infancy to ensure its survival. Furthermore, the CHEKA was temporary, as during the Civil War the role of the CHEKA had declined. ...read more.

Conclusion

It showed flexibility and the ability to compromise on ideology, which is not often related to dictators. Furthermore, NEP was able to restore confidence in Russians, workers and farmers returned to their work, which did help the economy. Overall, the NEP is another reason why Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. This is because Lenin was able to see the errors that had been caused by War Communism and offer an alternative that did not agree with his ideology. NEP therefore proves that Lenin is far from being a dictator as it helped to improve the Russian economy and it replaced a temporary policy, which was not suitable for Russia after the Civil War. Overall, Lenin was not a dictator as he had no intention of being so, Lenin merely responded to the circumstance that faced him, although these responses may seem unsuitable Lenin did retreat from some of them, such as the move from War Communism to the New Economic Policy after the Civil War. Thus Lenin cannot be seen as a dictator. 1 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution page 506 2 R.Pipes- The Three Whys of The Russian Revolution page 38 3 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 306 4 D.Volkogonov-Lenin Life and Legacy page 307 5 6 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 237 7 The Extra-ordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage was founded in December 1917. 8 D.Volkogonov- Lenine Life and Legacy page 236 9 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 10 R.Pipes- Three Whys Of The Russian Revolution page 41 11 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy page 472 12 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor page 62 13 M. Liebman- Leninism Under Lenin page 315 14 R.Service- Lenin a Biography page 322. 15 D.Volkogonov- Lenin Life and Legacy- page 334. 16 C.Hill- Lenin and the Russian Revolution- page 133. 17 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 18 P.Oxley- Russia from Tsars to Commissars- page 128. 19 J.Laver- Lenin Liberator or Oppressor- page70. 20 R.Service- Lenin a Biography- page 430. 21 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 22 R.Pipes- The Russian Revolution- page 23 R.Service-Lenin a Biography- page ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    As a general rule, however, it may be stated that in those areas where the peasants did have access to Bolshevik propaganda, they tended to vote for the party in the November elections to the Constituent Assembly. Over-all, the rewards to the Bolsheviks of their strategy of appealing to these three groups were substantial.

  2. Which Was the Most Important Reason for the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power By 1924, ...

    To further complicate matters, there was a factional dispute within the communist party. One group favoured the increase of private enterprise and supported the NEP as the new road to socialism. These were the right-deviationists. The left-deviationists favoured the liquidation of NEPmen and the kulaks and a return to Marxism at home and the fostering of world revolution.

  1. How far do you agree that the collectivisation of agriculture made an essential contribution ...

    The peasants had suffered all ready due their resistance and having vested interests. But worse was to come. The peasants were unable to work- some wouldn't and others couldn't. Leading to many peasants eating their own seed corns and slaughtering their livestock.

  2. Soviet State

    By 1929, his power was immense, and the first signs of the Stalin cult were emerging. * THE IMPACT OF COLLECTIVISATION - Collectivisation reinforced the party's traditions of unity and discipline by creating an atmosphere of intense crisis. * DISSENT WITHIN THE PARTY - After the completion of collectivisation and

  1. War communism and NEP

    As the state of the economy was in a drastic decline as a result of the First World War, they inherited a struggling situation so War Communism was a good way to reform this ideal for a new war, however some policies were not successful resulting from a civil war

  2. To what extent was Napoleon nothing more than a dictator?

    * Right to education, equality: Napoleon drew upon the ?right to be educated? which was first stated in the Declaration of Rights, 1793. He provided primary schools (run by the church) which taught simple ?moral education? and basic literacy and numeracy.

  1. How significant was Lenin between the years 1902-1918 to the formation of the Bolshevik ...

    The Kornilov Coup of 1917 presented the Bolsheviks with an opportunity to strengthen and improve their position before the coming revolution. General Kornilov, dissatisfied with the PG over what he and other Generals saw as failure to suppress the threat from the left and the need for military discipline, was

  2. Assess the view that the Bolshevik rule from 1917 to 1924 was shaped more ...

    Local centres of influence remained and Moscow could never exercise complete control over the provinces?. Laver?s point is that Lenin for one made the mistake of appointing Stalin a man that hated his own nationality to deal with a large issue in Georgia and the fact that Lenin in the early 1920?s was a very sick man.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work