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

Is it right to say "Stalin gained power in the years 1924-1929 only because his rivals made mistakes"?

Extracts from this document...


In the years 1924-29 Stalin successfully rose to power within the Bolshevik party. He managed to outmanoeuvre his opponents but did his successful rise come about because of his own abilities or did his opponents make too many errors along the way? The statement "Stalin gained power in the years 1924-29 only because his rivals made mistakes" has its merits. Firstly, one of the biggest mistakes made by Stalin's opponents was by Kamenev and Zinoviev. Both of whom failed to make Lenin's last testament public. Lenin had stated in it that Stalin shouldn't be allowed to rise to power. Given the reverence towards Lenin in the Bolshevik party the testament would, in all likelihood, have ended Stalin's political career. Kamenev and Zinoviev, however, didn't publish it because the things written about them were far from flattering. Another reason for them choosing to do this was a flaw of all Stalin's opponents. ...read more.


Then in 1927 after the left wing were united once more they were thrown out of the party by Stalin for going against party policy, called "factionalism". This was a fatal mistake by them, particularly Trotsky who passed the "factionalism" law that allowed expulsions. These mistakes by Stalin's rivals definitely aided his rise to power; however, it would be somewhat unfair to say that Stalin's rise to power can be attributed only to the short comings of his opponents. Whilst his rivals were making mistakes Stalin also utilised his know-how to stay out of trouble and manipulate the situation is his favour. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, Trotsky didn't attend Lenin's funeral and this may have partly been Trotsky's fault but it was Stalin's cunning that made it possible and his quick thinking saw him deliver a speech at the funeral that would be a factor in his rise to power. ...read more.


Stalin eventually deserted Bukharin and shifted to the left knowing that his 'employees', the people he had granted membership into the party, would vote his way regardless of which side of the party he represented. Whether it be forming partnerships or watching as others destroyed each with the squabbles, Stalin cleverly took advantage of people and the coalition they had, or were willing to form.. After looking at all the evidence I would disagree with the statement that it was only his opponents' mistakes that allowed Stalin to become leader of the Bolshevik party. Stalin was also clever and out-smarted his opponents at nearly every turn. He opponents certainly made mistakes along the way but Stalin was smart enough to capitalise on them, such as the left wing falling foul to factionalism. If he had not been clever and manipulative he wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the situations that arose. Furthermore, unlike the other contenders, Stalin fully utilised his position within the party to his advantage, such as getting new members that would most likely vote his way. ...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. Who gained the most from the Lichfield House Compact

    After the government had introduced the act they were criticised as it had looked like they were giving into the Catholics. One MP argued the Whigs were the "servants of Catholics." Yet they were mainly a success for the Whigs.

  2. How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his ...

    The way in which he shifted alliances with the different contenders could be compared to an analogy of playing them off against each other; he simply said nothing and let them ruin each other to a point where they were all out of the leadership struggle.

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

    Stalin was now in charge of administration and thus could refuse entrance to whomever he wished, especially his enemies. This his grip on power strengthened as no people who opposed his methods could enter the CPSU or SOVNARKOM and thus his power base grew - a useful tool should he be in competition with a senior party member eg.Trotsky.

  2. How far does Stalins position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his ...

    and luck was a major player too. In addition, Trotsky failed to speak against Stalin at this point. Trotsky was finally defeated in 1924 and again Stalin's role as General Secretary was an imperative aid to this defeat. Trotsky's speeches were brilliantly received and a great deal of people criticised the triumvirate now in power (Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev)

  1. To what extent were the Stalinist purges simply a way of eliminating his rivals?

    Therefore this source is based completely on the writings of others not mentioned in Conquests work, so it is impossible to derive how reliable the source is. Like Trotsky, Kirov was a man whose personal attributes were hugely different to that of Stalin.

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

    attempts to direct and formulate policy were widely accepted, particularly when people did not see improvements in their day-to-day life. 2. It was not yet clear how many major issues would be resolved. There were some things to consider? 1.

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

    In that situation he has seen his fellow socialist members being taken over by Stalin, but does very little to stop this. Furthermore he says himself Stalin is ?an unprincipled intriguer who subordinates everything for his appetite for power? The evidence here suggests he saw the dilemma, but does very little about it.

  2. Why was Stalin able to come to power by 1929?

    The new members were also predominantly young, very easy to control and to persuade. The new recruits were ?ready enough to accept what they were told? (A.Bullock) This putting him at a colossal political advantage over his peers in the Politburo as he was able to gain valuable votes, This

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