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

    with the North German Confederation, Bismarck knew this and due to his aims of unification a military alliance against France would ultimately result in unification because there would be no opposition once France was defeated and Liberals had seen the strength of co-operation with Prussia an alliance may bring.

  2. 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.

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    The army and the people should merely carry out the resolutions of the Soviet....The Soviet must convene the constituent assembly, which will settle on a new constitution and end the war. Here again, it is difficult to imagine the authors of these radical lines being able to make their peace with a moderate party.

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

    benefit the German economy - which, in it's strive for autarky, was overheating and struggling. It was a radical move at the time - Hitler's previous actions had been hidden under a veil of nationalism, and were never outwardly "Nazi".

  1. "To what extent was French defeat at the battle of Waterloo due to Napoleons ...

    This supports my previous claim that you cannot blame his subordinates; his orders have now come into question as well as his choice of staff. Throughout the duration of the waterloo campaign there were doubts of napoleons staunchness. He was lethargic, slow to react and spent the duration of the battle in his tent.

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

    The impact of the terror on the armed forces: 1936: Just under 1 million soldiers in the Red Army. 1941: 5 million soldiers in the Red Army. There was not just an increase in numbers, but also a reorganisation of structure and an adaptation to new weapons such as tanks and rockets.

  1. 1798 Irish Rebellion notes

    Certainly the problems involved in achieving any kind of all-Ireland mobilization were substantial from the very start and grew ever more so during the two years before 1798. While those with some kind of interest in rebellion were numerous enough, their disaffections consisted of materials not easily coordinated or reconciled.

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

    The result was a harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.Lenin would do everuthing what�s in his power to achieve his proposals. Russia suffered a lot since the treaty was signed because due to this treaty Russia lost: 62 million people, which meant one-sixth of the population,which at the same

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