• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How was Stalin able to defeat both his left and right opponents?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How was Stalin able to defeat both his left and right opponents? There were many combining factors that enabled Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, better known as Josef Stalin, to so easily slip into the role of successor to Lenin. His path the leadership of the Communist party of the Soviet Union,(the CPSU) can be attributed to many factors and certainly cannot be put down to inevitable occurrence as Stalin was by no means the natural choice for leader following the death of Lenin in 1924 especially as the deceased leader's testament had branded Stalin "too rude." In 1903 Lenin created the Bolshevik party, and successfully led it through three revolutions to the helm of government, and headed the world's first socialist state. His authority was recognised within the party and he was a respected leader. By 1918 a civil war broke out dividing the county. Lenin foresaw that a united Bolshevik front against the bourgeoisie (the whites) was a necessity and also that the government (SOVNARKOM) would be the dominant force in the new civil state following the cessation of the civil war. Thus in the same year all other political parties were banned and thus the CSPU remained the only party from which SOVNARKOM ministers could be drawn from. ...read more.

Middle

Lenin in fact described him as "The most valuable member of the party" in his testament, although he stated his views contained too much enthusiasm for peasant profits and capitalism also. This was seen as un-Marxist, and he was forced to withdraw an article, which declared that the peasants should "Enrich yourselves". Bukharin had been very close friends with Stalin, and didn't expect him to reverse his support for N.E.P in 1928. Bukharin therefore, I believe, was an easier opponent for Stalin when he decided to introduce his Five Year Plan and Collectivisation of Agriculture in 1928-33, and Stalin's defeat of the right was made easier because of Bukharin's lack of power base within the party as Stalin, since being General Secretary, had created a firm one for himself. Bukharin was never the opponent the Trotsky was as he failed to come up with a successful plan to counter the arguments of super-industrialises. As a result he never really proved his abilities to his colleagues. Two politburo members who Stalin used as 'rightist allies' to block Trotsky were Kamenev and Zinoviev. They both initially supported N.E.P and attacked Trotsky's views. ...read more.

Conclusion

Stalin also held the power to the party and thus the right never were given a free hearing just as Stalin's enemies were not when he was party secretary. Trade Unions were the only hope of Stalin's oppositions yet Stalin still acted decisively against them. He sent the ruthless Politburo member Kaganovich, to undertake a purge against the suspect Trade Unionists. He also sent Molotov to carry out similar actions against the Moscow CPSU using loyal Party officials within its structure. As a result of this, by early 1929, Tomsky was no longer Trade Union Leader, Uglanov had been replaced in Moscow, Rykov had been superseded as premier by Molotov and Bukharin had been voted out as chairman of the Commintern and lost his place in the Politburo. They were in effect "dropping like flies" and Stalin wasn't having to work too hard for power. The gulf was never that wide between the left and right but Stalin exploited what little gap there was well. Overall I feel that none of Stalin's opposition from the left or the right had the confidence or the conviction to actually seriously challenge Stalin for the right to become Bolshevik leader, and as MaCauley states: "Stalin was greatly assisted by the inept tactics of his opponents." ...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. Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Finally, he made changes in both education and religion but they were both to be more beneficial to the state not the people. After his successes, the senate wished to give Napoleon Consulship for the following ten years but when the country voted it was obvious that they felt he deserved more.

  2. "Hitler's foreign policy successes between 1936 and 1939 rested on his remarkable tactical skills ...

    However, to his anger, Schuschnigg called for a referendum upon his return to Austria, in which he asked the people to "affirm their support for Austrian impendence". Allowing this referendum to take place could have spelt bad news for the possibility of Anschluss - a negative result on Hitler's part would make it far more difficult to achieve the union.

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    What they would have done will never be known. Perhaps they would have formed a new bloc, or joined forces with the Mezhraionsty. The possibility of a new bloc should be strongly emphasized. Historically revolutions have been dominated by blocs created during the progress of the revolution.

  2. Why did the Franco-Prussian war happen and why were the Prussians able to defeat ...

    Another cause of the Franco-Prussian war was Napoleon III's ambition. From his accession to power in 1853 he had aimed to make France strong again. Evidence toward this assumption is the secret deals over parts of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Rhineland, Napoleon had made these deals with Prussia in order

  1. War communism and NEP

    This pragmatic approach caused Lenin, to again, show he was willing to be realistic rather than ideological to help survive the revolution. As the political issues grew narrower for Lenin, this caused him to create the new economic policy or NEP.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    He was personally responsible for promoting and ending the purges. 3. Other leading party members played an important part in promoting the error, confident that this is what their leader wanted, or else they had their own motives and were confident that there would be no check from the centre.

  1. How significant were the personalities of the contenders to succeed Lenin in accounting for ...

    in allowing and creating a path for Stalin to walk to power. Perhaps if other people in the politburo were willing to play underhand tactics like Stalin, the end would have been different. In retrospect we can see personalities might not be a main factor ? perhaps the individual ideologies

  2. Compare the characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin.

    Lenin had promised to end the War. And he did. But at what cost? Yes, Lenin got his peace but his poor judgement and obsession with ending the War lead to a very harsh treaty, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Lenin�s theory was to obtain peace at any price, this was an idea which Lenin took too far.

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