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

How Did Stalin Become Leader of the USSR?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How did Stalin become leader of the USSR? Lenin's death in 1924 created the chaos that helped Stalin rise to power. Lenin left behind him a Russia that required an almost perfect leader to guide it in the right direction after the chaos and turmoil that had it had witnessed when socialist party, the Bolsheviks, turned it upside down in the October Revolution of 1917. The regime in Russia was essentially a dictatorship and so the Russian people had no say in who would be their ruler. Therefore it was all down to what happened within the party. There were several contenders to become Lenin's successor. Trotksy, who seemed perhaps most likely to take over, was described by Lenin's political testament as being "the most capable man in the Central Committee" with "outstanding ability". He was the one who had led the Red Army to success in the Russian Civil War and he can also be credited for being the organiser of the October Revolution. Lenin probably favoured him but there was also Bukharin, who was very popular with the Russian people because of his pro-NEP policy and his more realistic approach to communism (concentrating on one country, gradual industrialisation...). Lenin described him as "the favourite of the whole party" in terms of his charming ways and general likeability. He also had a considerable amount of influence over public opinion thanks to his position as the editor of Pravda, the party's paper. Another pair of strong contenders was Zinoviev and Kamenev who worked as a team, complimenting each well. ...read more.

Middle

This meant that, yet again, the party lacked structure and direction, making the split evermore prominent. Furthermore, to add to the weakness of the party, the democratic centralists in it were constantly showing the discontent at the fact that their party's members were gradually losing more and more power to the Bolsheviks. The workers' opposition were also causing trouble for the party because they resented the fact that the soviets' power was disappearing, despite the fact that Lenin had supposedly heavily supported them ("All Power To the Soviets"). The party was a very weak structure by Lenin's death in 1924 and Stalin made the most of this disorganisation and lack of communication in his climb to power. To add to its weaknesses, Stalin's opposition also made a number of mistakes that turned out to be critically vital to Stalin's rise. The first of these involve Lenin's political testament. Despite the fact that Lenin's testament heavily criticised Stalin, it turned out to be a triumph for Stalin. In his testament, Lenin didn't really want to show any big amount of favour for any of the contenders for power because he probably aimed to have a collective leadership in the party, another step towards communism. Therefore, as well as showing a certain amount of praise to each of them, he also criticised them heavily for their defaults. Whilst Trotsky is described as having "excessive self-assurance" and "preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work", Bukharin is suspected of being "scholastic" and having "never made a study of dialects" and Kamenev and Zinoviev are accused of not having cooperated in the October Revolution. ...read more.

Conclusion

Stalin's position in the party was also another strength of his. Being in the middle, he could allow himself to be flexible with his policies and this was a big advantage when it came to the insecurity of the NEP. He was also general secretary for the party, giving him the possibility to arrange meetings and appointments to a certain extent. In conclusion, despite the fact that Stalin started off as the least likely contender to become ruler of Russia after Lenin's death, it is much easier to understand why after this fantastic essay. However, there are also other questions concerning his death that can be raised. Was Stalin what the USSR needed at the time? And would that help explain his rise to power? Was a leader like Stalin, who eventually went on to become the most feared dictator of the 20th century, the kind of leader that would have always emerged from Marxism? American historian Stephen Cohen argues that the system that Lenin set up in the USSR was fated to find a leader like Stalin and that "Stalinism" was the inevitable cause of it all. I disagree completely. I believe that, had Lenin survived longer, he would have no doubt ensured that a different, "safer" leader (or leaders), more similar to himself, would have been in charge after his death. Stalin gave communism a very bad image and he put the most of the world of it. Had Stalin not risen to power, would there now be some states that had turned to communism and were now thriving, and better off than ever before? ?? ?? ?? ?? sam ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History 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 International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. Mao Zedong: Dictatorship of a Single Party State

    * kept power from inception of PRC until death (1 October 1949 - 9 September 1976) * 1959, "resigned" as President of PRC, but STILL was Chairman of CPC o China = Party-State. Control of Party = control of State, but NOT vice versa b.

  2. To what extent should the success of Stalin in the leadership struggle between 1924-1930 ...

    o Policy was consequently defeated in debate22. * Stalin - "Socialism in One Country" o "Lenin's preferred methodology"23. o Argument was over complicated with quotations taken out of context; but a more moderate approach, with agreeable elements24. (Appendices 5). o o PART C: Evaluation of Sources.

  1. In order to achieve and retain power a leader of a single-party state needed ...

    A History of the World in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000. * During 1929-32, Stalin's system of Collectivization had weakened Stalin's authority, and to retain power he initiated the use of Terror or the Great Purge. * Throughout the Great Purge, Stalin had the NKVD (Cheka)

  2. Russia 1905 revolution

    Thus town councils served the same function as the zemstva in providing valuable lessons in self-government for the Russians and became the hotbeds of liberalism, challenging the rule of the Czar. (iii) Other reforms: The Czar also attempted to modernize Russian legal system by providing for open trial, the use

  1. Evaluate the successes and failures of one ruler of a single-party state

    In conjunction with Stalin's policy of socialism in one country where communism was to be developed in the USSR, the USSR, as a communist nation had to be shown to be the equal, if not better than it's capitalist counterparts, and thus started the undertaking of the five-year plans.

  2. IB History HL, Extended Notes: Russia, the Tsars, the Provisional Govenment and the Revolution.

    Lacked material wealth/stability, susceptible to revolution. 4. Attempts to construct a middle ground of ?enlightened conservatism? produced enemies on both sides of the political spectrum. Assassinated in 1911 by a socialist with connections to the secret police. Assessment 1. Said 20 years of peace needed, only had 7.

  1. Notes on the History and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

    The Peres solution involved giving up some territory to Jordan in return for peace and recognition. Likud's Sharon (minister of commerce and industry) wanted Israeli annexation of the OTs and this ongoing rivalry blocked any concensus within Israeli politics about the future of the West Bank.

  2. He brought his country and his people nothing but harm. To what extent do ...

    Nevertheless the relaxing of the Terror campaign only occurred in some aspects; in its worst form, Dekulakisation, Stalin made the mistake of continuing to deport the country?s best workers, even when production levels fell with growing stagnation amongst the peasantry in 1933 to the extent that 1.1 million suspected Kulaks were sent to the collectives or exiled to the gulags.

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