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

Authors Avatar by gfdgfd (student)

The Impact of Stalin’s Leadership in the USSR, 1924 – 1941

AQA HIS2L

        

Stalin’s personal rule

The sources of Stalin’s strengths:

Stalin’s rise to power did not begin with Lenin’s death. His positions within the party had already given him significant influence.

  • As General Secretary, Stalin ran the party machine, meaning he occupied probably the most important position in the USSR and he could decide promotions to party positions (Lenin enrolment)
  • As a member of the Politburo, Stalin was one of the small group of leading communists who met regularly to make policy. These were the decision makers of the USSR.
  • As a member of the Secretariat and Orgburo, Stalin was also responsible for carrying out policy decisions and monitoring the members of the party.
  • Between 1917 and 1923, Stalin was Commissar for Nationalities. He supervised party officials in non-Russian republics like the Ukraine.
  • As head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate, Stalin supervised the work of all government departments.

In theory, the Bolshevik party ran the whole country. The struggle for power after Lenin’s death was partly about policy, and partly about personalities. Stalin won the personal and policy battle. The policies he introduced or associated with his name were more in keeping with soviet needs at the time.

Stalin’s strengths in the power struggle:

  • Very close to Lenin during his final months and controlled access to the sick leader.
  • Held many influential positions within the party.
  • He had Lenin’s office bugged to gain information.
  • 1923 Lenin Enrolment managed by Stalin – meant that those appointed to new positions owed a debt of gratitude to Stalin and also that he could appoint those who would favour him over everyone else.
  • Stalin’s rivals underestimated him.
  • Stalin compiled reports on other prominent communists, including those who were to be his main rivals.
  • After Lenin’s death, he cleverly presented himself as the upholder of his legacy.
  • Created cult of Lenin, had his body embalmed even though this was against his wishes.
  • Used Lenin’s name to justify his policies making it difficult for colleagues to argue with him.
  • Others made tactical mistakes which Stalin exploited.

Stalin’s qualities enabled him to rise to a position of unrivalled power by 1928 however at this time he still had to listen to other party members and could not do what he wanted without consulting others. Stalin’s ‘second revolution’ was the economic and social transformation of the USSR.

Stalin’s rivals in the power struggle:

Grigori Zinoviev:

Was with Lenin in exile until April 1917, and then joined Kamenev in opposing Lenin’s call for an uprising.

Zinoviev’s strengths in the power struggle:

  • Regarded as intelligent, energetic and very knowledgeable.
  • One of the party’s best speakers.
  • An ‘Old Bolshevik’ – meant he was likely to get respect from colleagues.
  • Promoted to the highest ranks of the party by Lenin.
  • Regarded as Lenin’s ‘closest and most trusted assistant’.
  • Had important positions in the Comintern, the Politburo and the Leningrad Party (between 1918 and 1926, Zinoviev was head of the Leningrad party organisation).

Zinoviev’s weaknesses in the power struggle:

  • Gained a reputation for inconsistency. Opposed Lenin in 1917 and switched alliances between Stalin and Trotsky.
  • Seen as someone without a clear philosophy – not focused and dedicated enough to run the USSR.
  • Buckled under political pressure (renouncing Trotskyism after defeat by Stalin in 1927).
  • Subject to mood swings.
  • Seriously underestimated his opponents.

Lev Kamenev:

Sent into exile in Siberia at the settlement where Stalin was exiled. He returned to Petrograd in 1917, where he allied with Zinoviev in opposing Lenin’s wishes for an uprising against the Provisional government, on the grounds that the Bolshevik party did not have enough support.

After Lenin became ill, Kamenev along with Zinoviev supported Stalin in opposing Trotsky. Supported Stalin in 1934 at the 17th Party Congress but this did save him – was arrested and executed in 1936 after the Kirov assassination.

Kamenev’s strengths in the power struggle:

  • An ‘Old Bolshevik’.
  • Helped form party policy and was close to Lenin who entrusted him with many of his personal papers in 1922.
  • Had influence in Moscow where he ran the local party.
  • Thoughtful and intelligent.

Kamenev’s weaknesses in the power struggle:

  • Less popular than Zinoviev.
  • Gained a reputation for inconsistency by not supporting Lenin in 1917 and constantly switching between supporting Stalin and supporting Trotsky.
  • Not strong enough to be the leader of the USSR.
  • Seriously underestimated his opponents.

Trotsky:

Initially a member of the Mensheviks (Bolshevik’s opposition) but switched to the Bolshevik party in May 1917. Trotsky played a crucial role in helping the Bolsheviks seize power and in planning the October revolution.

Supported War Communism and crushed the 1921 Krondstadt rebellion by sailors who had fought for the Bolsheviks but had become disillusioned with their dictatorship.

Trotsky’s strengths in the power struggle:

  • He was clever, a good speaker and had shown himself to be an energetic man of action between 1917 and 1921.
  • He had been Lenin’s right-hand man during the revolution and the Civil War.
  • He had good leadership skills (ruthless, good at making decisions). For example carrying out the October revolution and leading the Red Army.

Trotsky’s weaknesses in the power struggle:

  • He was a late convert to Bolshevism which made some ‘Old Bolsheviks’ suspect him.
  • Some leading Bolsheviks disliked his arrogance.
  • He made no effort to build a power base in the party – a terrible mistake when it came to inter-party fighting after Lenin’s death. It meant that Trotsky had a hard time in the late 1920s when opposing party congresses packed with Stalin’s supporters.
  • It was feared he might use his Red Army links to mount a military attack after Lenin’s death.
  • Trotsky was a Jew and felt there would be prejudice against him (anti-Semitism) and so did not push himself forward.
  • He was accused of being an opportunist who lacked consistency. When he attacked the growth of party bureaucracy in 1924 it could be said he was criticising Lenin. Originally he opposed Zinoviev and Kamenev, but sided with them against Stalin later.
  • Trotsky was unpredictable, indecisive and often nervous.
  • He made crucial errors of judgement. He attacked the party bureaucracy in 1924 when he needed its support. He argued against publicising Lenin’s testament which let Stalin off the hook. He attacked Lenin’s NEP in his book ‘Lessons of October’ in 1924.
  • Trotsky completely underestimated Stalin, who he regarded as inferior.

Interpretations of Trotsky:

  • ‘Trotskyism’ became a term of abuse in Stalin’s USSR and was stuck on anyone whom the regime wanted to discredit.
  • Label given to those who admired some of the original ideas of the Russian revolution, but who were strongly opposed to totalitarianism regimes like the one Stalin ran.
  • Some historians argue that Trotsky would have been a far more liberal leader than Stalin.
  • Others argue that Trotsky helped Stalin to become a bloody dictator, in the way that he facilitated Stalin’s seizure of power in the Party.

Nikolai Bukharin:

Although he supported War Communism, he later supported the NEP. After Lenin’s death, he was the most influential member of the party alongside Stalin, supported Stalin’s Socialism in One Country and opposed Trotsky. Helped Stalin defeat the Left Opposition but was expelled from the party in 1937 and executed in 1938.

Bukharin’s advantages in the power struggle:

  • Popular within the party.
  • Close to Lenin.
  • Intelligent and regarded as the best thinker in the party.
  • Close ally of Stalin for many years and respected by him.
  • Stalin relied on Bukharin’s knowledge of economics.

Bukharin’s weaknesses in the power struggle:

  • He was naïve and lacked qualities needed for inter-party fighting.
  • Appeared to be more popular within the party than Stalin which was a huge mistake.
  • He lacked a power base because he tried to remain loyal to everyone and tried to avoid inter-factional fighting.
  • Seriously underestimated Stalin.
  • Made a tactical mistake in 1928 by trying to establish links with defeated Kamenev.
  • Lacked consistency.

Bukharin was seen as a fan of ‘gradualism’ and supported the system of a centrally-controlled, planned economy run by the dictatorship. The USSR needed to focus on developing heavy industry before a socialist society could emerge.

Stalin’s defeat of the Left and Right Opposition and establishment of personal rule between 1924 and 1929:

The defeat of the left:

By the late 1920s, Stalin was well on the way to achieving power. The four years following Lenin’s death resulted in considerable shifts in alliances between leading Communists.

  • Following Trotsky’s attack on the Party’s bureaucracy in 1924, Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev allied against him.
  • Trotsky argued to permanent revolution: focusing on encouraging and helping communist revolutions abroad so that the USSR would not be an isolated state.
  • Stalin began to publicise his policy of Socialism in One Country – the USSR should concentrate on developing its path to socialism meaning that it would not be vulnerable against attacks by Capitalist states.
  • Trotsky attacked Stalin’s ideas and joined Kamenev and Zinoviev in the United/Left Opposition. They wanted a more rapid transition from the NEP to a Socialist State, needing rapid industrialisation.
  • 1926: The Left Opposition failed to get its policies through at the 15th Party Congress – marked the start of their decline. They could no longer voice their opinions publically.
  • The leaders of the Left Opposition were expelled from their positions and from the Politburo. Trotsky was sent into exile, while Kamenev and Zinoviev stayed in the party, but were effectively silenced.

How?

Stalin used his power-base in the party and the support of the right, led by Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky to defeat the left.

The defeat of the right:

Bukharin did not believe that the USSR could push through a rapid industrialisation process, even though he did believe in the necessity in creating an industrialised USSR.

He believed that the peasants should be encouraged to produce more, and pay more tax, and then the revenue could be used to speed up industrial development. Bukharin believed that a ruthless approach would alienate a crucial sector of the population.

The defeat of the left removed any dependence Stalin might have had to the right and in 1928, Stalin committed to rapid industrialisation (the policy previously supported on the left). When the right opposed this, Stalin removed its leaders from the Politburo.

Stalin was now effectively the leader of the USSR.

Why did Stalin come to power?

Power struggle about policy not personality for the most part, the direction the USSR should go. The question was whether the USSR should concentrate on developing Socialism at home as a priority, or whether peasants should provide the money and labour for industrialisation. All Party members agreed the NEP was just a temporary measure.

  • Stalin sometimes took over other people’s ideas, if he thought they would be more popular etc. For example, the left’s approach to industrialisation.
  • Would be too simplistic to say that Stalin was just out for power because he changed his views.
  • Stalin did not just have the advantages of control of the party and the ability to outmanoeuvre them, but also he had popular support.
  • Stalin put forward policies with which most party members agreed.

Interpretations of Stalin’s rise to power:

  • Some historians focus on the role of individuals like Stalin himself – analysing his decisions and seeing those and their interaction as the most important factors in major developments.
  • Other historians tend to analyse developments within the Communist party. This was often called a structuralist approach.
  • Edward Carr focused on the structure of the Communist Party, and he played down the role of personal ambition. The party developed in a particular direction immediately after the revolution and that many of its key characteristics (intolerance of opposition) were in place under Lenin.
  • Robert Service, a Western historian analysed the continuities in the Soviet regime between Lenin and Stalin. Stalin took the policies and the party in a more extreme direction, but he was building on something already in place.
  • Whilst alive, Stalin was projected as a genius who was leading the country securely on a path to Communism, building on the great achievements already begun by Lenin. Under later Soviet leaders, this approach was modified. Some say Stalin overreached himself, in the way he dealt with rivals.
  • Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, historians have been more critical of Stalin  revisionist.

The USSR on the eve of the Stalin revolution

The NEP

Arguments for the NEP:

The NEP was by no means regarded as a permanent state of affairs – introduced in 1921 as an emergency measure.

  • Introduced to rescue the economy and possibly the Communist regime itself from economic collapse.
  • Logical ‘halfway house’ between the Capitalism that the revolution set out to destroy and the future era of Socialism – couldn’t switch just like that, it needed to be a process.
  • Allowed individuals to make money and do well for themselves  meaning they’d be able to spend more, boosting the economy.
  • Major businesses were in state hands.
  • The population as a whole were protected.

Arguments against the NEP:

Not everyone, even those in the Communist party, believed that the NEP was a good thing.

  • The private enterprise part meant that some people were making a profit out of other’s labour. This went against the principle of public good and of Socialism.
  • Economic divisions meant class differences increased: the new bourgeoisie were formed (these people were enemies of Socialism).
  • The USSR could not move forward into a socialist future if not everyone had the same vision of society.
  • Movement more towards the Capitalism that had been present under the Tsar rather than the Socialist future that the Communist party wanted.

How did the soviet economy develop between 1924 and 1928?

Agriculture:

By the early 1920s, Soviet agriculture had suffered greatly from War Communism and the Great Famine of 1921-2. By 1926, production had mostly recovered to pre-First World War levels. However, there were problems…

  • Recovery was uneven. Production in central & southern regions recovered more slowly than in the eastern and northern regions. Sugar beet, fruit & vegetables recovered much quicker than grain production.
  • Richer peasants taxed more heavily than poorer peasants, meaning many peasants tried to hide as much of their produce as they could – bags of grain. The authorities raised only about 4/5 of their target figures and ended up directly requisitioning the grain. Peasants complained that although the NEP was better than War Communism, they were taxed more than they had been under the Tsar.
  • Farmers kept more of the produce for themselves. In 1926, about half the grain that had been sold outside the villages in 1913 was actually sold. More food meant lower prices and peasants did not want to sell their grain cheaply as other goods were expensive in comparison (The Scissors Crisis).
  • This was a major cause of the 1927-8 procurement crisis. This crisis forced the regime into requisitioning (named Urals-Siberian method) and then into collectivisation.
  • Also some evidence that Stalin exaggerated the crisis in order to provide an excuse for tough action against the peasantry.
  • Exports fell. Grain exports only a quarter of the 1913 level. This was a problem as Russia needed to export more goods in order to fund industrialisation.
  • Peasants were inefficient at farming – little machinery was used and they still farmed using the strip-system. The only freedom peasants had was what to buy and sell. It was a system of small-scale individual farming which could not support ambitious industrialisation plans.
  • There was continuing hostility from the peasantry, as shown in complaints collected by the secret police.
  • Farming was individual which made it difficult for the Communist Party to control what went on in the countryside. Stalin was unable to reach most peasants through propaganda as two-thirds of them were illiterate.
Join now!

The GPU (secret police) collected lists of peasant complaints. This alarmed the party. In several areas of the USSR its policies were being defied. The party leadership blamed the influence of ‘kulaks’ and made a decision in 1926 to destroy the kulaks as a class.

How?

  • Taxed more heavily.
  • Children denied education.
  • 1928 – many given hard labour.
  • Had their property confiscated.

This showed how far the Party were willing to go in order to achieve their main goal: socialism. Kulaks did not like this as they were benefiting greatly from the half-Capitalist, half-Socialist policy that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay