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

To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of 'Red Tsar' when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964? When Stalin rose to power in 1929 he claimed to the Russian public that he was a devote follower of Leninism; his slogan 'Lenin is always with us'1 meant that Stalin wanted to show how similar he was to Lenin. However Stalin asserted his power at the head of government much like the Tsars by employing tactics of fear and propaganda. Stalin's personal dictatorship meant he had strong elements of being 'Red Tsar' as he established unquestionable rule, this idea of being a 'Red Tsar' came from the belief that Stalin wasn't committed to communism, as his traditional ideas were reminiscent of Tsarist autocratic rule, so effectively he was a fusion between the two ruling styles. As Stalin wished to portray himself as a 'God-like' figure; this made him an isolated leader who tolerated no criticism, similar to the style of ruling under the Tsars, as both leaders dismissed ministers at their own will and chose to act on their own personal feelings, for example like the Russification policy of employed by all the Tsars, but in particular Alexander II and the nationalistic policies of Stalin. Stalin's government was 'top-down'2, and unlike Lenin and Khrushchev, Stalin was very wary of how much his fellow party members knew. Therefore he employed a clear hierarchy, where information was withheld from lower members. The Tsars relied on loyalty of �lites to strengthen government, in particular the nobility and the Russian Orthodox Church, who helped to keep firm control over the Russian people. Although it is true that both Lenin and Stalin surrounded themselves with loyal �lites called nomenklatura, these �lites became more important under Stalin, as the influence of the wider CCP was reduced he descended into his 'personal dictatorship'. The growth under Stalin of the Party Secretariat, which was created under Lenin, meant there was a growth in bureaucracy, something which communist ideology disapproved of. ...read more.


Stalin used a regime of Terror to stay in power much like the Tsars, but his creation of a highly centralised state means that historians such as Schapiro hold Stalin personally responsible for high levels of human suffering24 during his rule. Furthermore Robert Conquest claims that "the Great terror emanated from the top", he claims that "Stalin planned the purges, directed the NKVD and organised the apparatus of terror, to control his own party as much as the country".25 Whereas J. Arch Getty claims "the Cold War distorted the western view of the Soviet Union" and we "must distance Stalin from sole responsibility"26 for the horrors of the Great Terror. Getty claims that Stalin had no plans the Terror experienced in the Soviet Union at this time, and despite his position of power his personality faults do not help to explain what happened, in fact Stalin may have not even known what was going on. Getty also claims that officers in the NKVD acted on their own will, due to chaos of the Soviet Union and fear of Stalin's temper. Getty claims that the randomness of attacks and irrational fear within the population, shows that there was a lack of tight central control. Getty's view is extreme, because although the scale of the terror, thoroughness of targeting and executions can be partly put down to a tumult within the Soviet Union at this time, Stalin must still be regarded as a deeply suspicious character, who saw enemies everywhere, therefore he must be more than partially responsible. Consequently the most convincing view is that Stalin was not solely responsible for the Terror experienced, but that his position within the country meant he knew the majority of what was happening and exercised significant power over the NKVD. The atrocities experienced did not happen without a great deal of central orchestration because the sheer scale, cannot simply be put down to civil unrest. ...read more.


Therefore whilst Stalin has many elements to show how similar he was to the Tsars, Lenin's state allowed for these to form, distancing Stalin from his title of 'Red Tsar'. Hence concluding that autocracy was inevitable in Russia during this period due to the situation in Russia and that Stalinism was effectively a fusion of communism and Tsarism. 3, 736 1 McCauley M (1995) Page 2 Ibid Page 46 3 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 6 4 Darby G (1998) Page 126 5 McCauley M (1995) Page 46 6 Service R (2010) 7 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 7 8Sebag Montefiore S. (2004) page 172/3 9 Ibid page 4 10 Ibid Page 19 11 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 13 12 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 479 13 McCauley M (1995) Page 82 14 Ibid Page 34 15 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 731 16 Ibid Page 409 17 McCauley M (1995) Page 85 18 Ibid Page 84 19 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 7 20 Carr E.H (2004) Page 172 21 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 6 22 Corin C. and Fiehn T. (2002) Page 310 23 Ibid Page 311 24 Ibid page 313 25 Johnson R. (2003) Page 109 26 Ibid Press Page 109 27 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 7 28 Carr E.H (2004)Page 125 29 Johnson R. (2003) Page 106 30 Hartfree S (1996) Leninism versus Stalinism in Modern History Review Page 109 31 Johnson R. (2003) page 105 32 Seaton- Waston H (1967) page 469 33 Johnson R. (2003) Page 106 34 Carr E.H (2004) Page 119 35 McCauley M (1995) Page 32 36 Ibid Page 112 37 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 548 38 Carr E.H (2004) Page 106 39 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 730 40 Seaton- Waston H (1967) Page 730 41 McCauley M (1995) Page 71 42 Carr E.H (2004) Page 152 ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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 International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

This is a thorough and well-structured exploration, which is supported by a great deal of research and comes to a strong conclusion. A little more evidence is needed to prove points in places but this more than answers the question and is convincing. 5 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 22/05/2013

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 International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the successes and failures of Mussolini's domestic policy.

    5 star(s)

    Although it seems that the Fascist state looked as if they controlled education and the Italian youths very directly and aggressively, the policy was not very successful. Illiteracy was still high at 20% by 1931, and most students were only affected in their elementary schools; by secondary school and university, the young adults had formed their own opinions on Fascism.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that Napoleons Empire ...

    5 star(s)

    Showing that, once again the benefits of the Napoleonic Empire would not be appreciated until after Napoleon?s reign. So overall, interpretation D is the more useful of the disagreeing interpretations as it mentions a wider spectrum benefits that Napleon offered, from modernization to nationalism, while also staying useful to answering the question throughout the interpretation.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    How successful were Nazi economic policies in the years 1933-45?

    4 star(s)

    The aims of the four year plan were to prepare for war and establish autarky by expanding domestic production, developing substitutes and expanding abroad. They also extended government controls and expanded armament. The success over the years of the four year plan was mixed.

  2. What were the effects of the First Five Year Plan on Russia?

    not used to the change and the fact that they had to hand over all their land to someone else, many thought that the situation was worse than when the Tsar was reigning. Before the idea of Collectivisation many peasants in the country thought that the old way was the better way.

  1. How did Joseph Stalin rise to power?

    However Stalin used his manipulation to suppress this testament. However Lenin's funeral could also be classed as lucky for Stalin. This is because Trotsky was ill at that time with pneumonia and was therefore unaware of the correct date of Lenin's funeral, Stalin took advantage of this and misled Trotsky

  2. To what extent was Bismarck responsible for German unification?

    1848 - 1849 showed, when there was no unified attempt to change much, rather separate groups in each state attempting, but failing due to the lack of unity across the German Confederation. Bismarck, however, could easily merit the title of dictator.

  1. What impact did war have on the French Revolution 1789-1799?

    and armees revolutionaries were sent to the areas to crush the insurrections and create order. Once the war began to go better, people began to question the need for it to stay in force. By the end of September 1793 the French armies had driven the Spanish ones out of Roussillon and the Piedmontese out of Savoy.

  2. To what extent was Hitler responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War ...

    this policy and that he was only pressurised by others such as Halifax and Churchill to guarantee Poland?s borders and subsequently declare war on Germany in 1939. Chamberlain according Charmley should have followed appeasement through to its logical conclusion. This would have ultimately given Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe.

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