After gaining power, Stalin was determined to modernize the USSR; he ended Lenin’s NEP, and introduced his 5 year plans, which set targets for each industry, region, factory, and even individual worker, despite most targets not being met, they were extremely successful, in some cases production rose 300% from 1928 – 33, what Stalin did was unprecedented, speaking about the first 5 year plan he put it quite simply “We did not have an iron and steel industry. Now we have one. We did not have a machine tool industry. Now we have one. We did not have a modern chemicals industry now we have one”, now whilst this may have been said by Stalin to promote his 5 year plans, so doesn’t show both sides of the story, he was spot on, he set out to increase production and modernize Russia, and he did so. His second 5 year plans built on what had been achieved by the first, this time industrializing agriculture and building mining infrastructure, he transformed Russia from a crop dependant nation into industrialized nation in 10 years, and put in place the building blocks for the military superpower it was to become. And unlike Lenin he didn’t compromise his communist principles in doing so.
To conclude, whilst Lenin did influence the economy, he did so in a lacklustre way, starving 7 million people to death and sending production plummeting; only NEP saved him from being overthrown by his own people, and even then, production levels were only marginally higher than they had been under the Tsar. Stalin on the other hand, used his 5 year plans to modernize the USSR, he effectively went through an industrial revolution. It took others 200 years. It took Stalin 10.
The second factor to consider is political success. Lenin was an amazing policy maker and public speaker, but then again so was Trotsky, his right hand man. In the October Revolution, Lenin made his famous speech of “Bread, peace and land!”, the Russian people were behind him, and he had to deliver. The First World War was taking its toll on Russia, a Russian officer reporting back to the provisional government in 1917 said that “the German offensive which began on 6 July is turning into an immense catastrophe which may threaten Russia with ruin”. One of Lenin's first moves after taking power was to negotiate Russia’s withdrawal from the war. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty did this, but on highly embarrassing terms (e.g. Russia lost ~90% of its coal mines), Lenin gambled on Germany losing so that he could reclaim the land, a shrewd political manoeuvre and one that paid off, but remember it was in fact Trotsky who negotiated the treaty. Lenin also showed his political strength in early 1918, elections had been held, and when the Constituent Assembly opened, the Socialist Revolutionaries were the biggest party, so Lenin promptly sent I the Red Army to shut it down, this move showed people that he and he alone was firmly in control, without this kind of control, the USSR would have crumbled.
Stalin was very intelligent, he took on many boring, but important political offices within the party so that he could place his supporters into important positions, and transfer opponents to less important posts where they could do little harm. He took on his opponents one by one. He once took Bukharin’s side in an argument to get rid of Trotsky, then argued the same points Trotsky had to get rid of Bukharin. By doing this he cemented his position of power in the party, he didn’t need to beat the opposition, he simply removed them from the equation altogether.
Stalin’s purges were very successful at giving him political power, anyone who opposed him would be killed, in show trials, many Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, Kamanev and Zinoviev ‘confessed’ to being traitors to the state and were executed, around 500,000 party members were arrested and subsequently executed or sent to gulags, by 1937 over 18 million people had been sent to labour camps, a sickening strategy, but ultimately one that succeeded and ensured that no one even thought of opposing Stalin, by removing possible political opponents before they could develop into problems, he ensured he was the unopposed, feared, but respected leader of the USSR. This ensured he was always in power and made decisions without fear of being challenged about them.
To conclude I feel that Lenin was strong politically, however he would not have been so strong had it not been for the support of Trotsky throughout, and his promises of “Bread, peace and land!”, did not ring true, he starved 7 million people to death under war communism, lost huge amounts of land in the Treaty and Brest-Litovsk, and caused a civil war
Who was more important, Lenin or Stalin?
In this essay I will explain who was more important in creating the Soviet Union, Lenin or Stalin; some Historians may say Stalin, and others, Lenin.
War Communism and the New Economic Policy
The brutal economic measures that the Bolsheviks made during the Civil War were known as ‘War Communism’. It had two aims. Communists believe that wealth should be disrupted equally between citizens, and that the ‘leader’ or ‘government’ would hold the power against its people. Therefore, the first aim of War Communism was to redistribute wealth between the Russian people. The second aim was to help the country win the civil war, by supplying the red army (The Bolshevik army, led by Trotsky) and the towns with weapons and food.
Although this economic policy led the red army to win the war, many people suffered due to the measures that were held. For example, when peasants refused to produce more food because the government kept taking it away (due to War Communism), a lot of people starved. Approximately, 7 million Russian people were thought to have died in this Famine, and some people may have even resorted to cannibalism.
Lenin realised that the ‘War Communism’ must be stopped. A lot of people, who used to support Lenin, began to turn against him. For instance, the Kronstadt sailors were big supporters; nevertheless, many of them began to turn against Lenin’s communist ways, as a lot of them were killed. The Kronstadt sailors stated in their official statement that they ‘hoped for freedom’ and that ‘the result has been greater slavery’, they wanted to ‘free the workers and the Soviets from the Communists’. This meant that Lenin had to abandon the policy of War Communism and put in place a new economic policy.
On the other hand, War Communism was extremely crucial in creating the Soviet Union. Had Lenin, not led the country into winning the war, he would have kept the policies of ‘War Communism’ and many more people and supporters would have died (turning a lot of people against him). Also, there would have been a possibility that Russia would have been taken over by other Countries, as ‘War Communism’ led the people to be venerable (as many of them were starving). Also, without War Communism and a lot of people dead because of it, Lenin would not have thought about creating a new economic policy (which caused many people to believe that Lenin betrayed the communist belief) that would benefit his people. Furthermore, the Kronstadt would have made ‘a third revolution’ and freed the ‘Soviets from the Communists’. Without War Communism, Lenin would not have saved his peoples’ belief in him.
