• 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.

    He wanted to conquer Europe but this came with many dilemmas, as England was much too powerful for France and Napoleon's naval fleets were defeated in the battle of Trafalgar. However, he was glorious in other places. He was crowned King of Italy in 1805, he made Genoa part of France and he also made alliances with Germany.

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

    because there would have been no tactical and political gain in a war with France or no-one there who had the diplomatic intelligence to see any gains but because Bismarck wished to unite Germany he needed either French support, which he would never get with Napoleon III, or a French

  1. "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.

  2. How did Stalin Rise to Power between 1922 – 1929?

    On the whole there is every reason to believe that had Lenin's stroke not intervened, Lenin would have demoted Stalin in the government hierarchy. Yet when Lenin died it was Stalin who was best positioned to succeed him. Trotsky's failure to take the opportunity to undermine his rival remains a puzzle.

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    His loyalty to the soldiers' councils might easily have outweighed his loyalty to the party, had there been a conflict. Even the faithful Sverdlov, widely regarded as one of Lenin's most faithful disciples, had advocated early on in the revolution a policy of no confidence in the Provisional Government.

  2. 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.

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

    Impact of Stalinism on ideology, culture and society: The existence of the Soviet regime relied on a variety of factors: 1. The monopoly of power enjoyed by the Communist Party. 2. The impossibility of ever replacing the Communist Party or challenging it, despite guarantees of civil rights in the Soviet Constitution.

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

    Moreover his ability to look into the future and plan his actions to aid his accent was stunning, as if he planned every move meticulously and almost in hindsight. Looking at the evidence, Stalin?s personality was vital in his accent, but perhaps if the others had been different the overall outcome would have drastically changed.

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