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

How successful was Khrushchev as Soviet Leader?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐How successful was Khrushchev as Soviet Leader? ?The man with baggy trousers from the Ukraine?, described by Hughes and Wallace, was never considered the heir to Stalin. However, by 1955 Nikita Khrushchev was the dominant member of the post-Stalinist collective leadership, a feat accomplished by his force of personality and political skill. Several similarities can be seen between Khrushchev?s rise to power and that of his infamous predecessor, a route that brought to power two great and influential Leaders, and two very different natures of leadership. Nevertheless, although Khrushchev was a great Leader, he was not a great Soviet Leader; through his agricultural and industrial policies, implementation of De-Stalinisation and in particular his Secret Speech, Khrushchev proved himself to be a leader that was too different too soon for the USSR. Through his rise to power, Khrushchev appeared to have the makings of a successful Soviet Leader by outmanoeuvring his political opponents in a similar way that Stalin did. Through his working class roots, Ukrainian rather than Georgian, Khrushchev rose through Soviet ranks due to his organisational abilities just like ?comrade card index?, and built up a power base by ?recruiting and keeping officers loyal to himself? according to Service and promoting his supporters into the Central Committee , as Stalin did with the Politburo and Orgburo. He appeared an unobtrusive figure, a moderatist, underestimated by his colleagues whilst possessing a ruthless ability to eliminate political rivals; further to this, none of the other candidates matched Khrushchev in persuasiveness and the strength of personality which ensured that he was successful in his rise to power. ...read more.


Khrushchev?s real chance to consolidate his power and unite the party rather than divide it was with his agricultural policies. The emphasis he put on food production rather than heavy industry was enough of a difference to clearly outline a different domestic approach to that of Stalin, and with this instead of the secret speech, Khrushchev?s colleagues may well have been more united behind him for the Virgin Land scheme as they were forced to admit collectivisation was not successful. Until the Virgin Land scheme, all signs pointed to Khrushchev having a success in agriculture that Stalin never achieved. He was in touch with his peasant roots, spent time in the countryside with them throughout his career, and was very motivated and enthusiastic to pioneer a new agricultural policy for the USSR. Despite this, ?enthusiasm was not enough? asserts Service, ?it could not make up for lack of detailed planning?; this lack of detailed planning was to become a constant recurrence throughout the Khrushchev era. His leadership style was to lead with inspiration and intuition, leaving the toothcomb to someone else to check the legitimacy of policies. Another leadership trait was his close personal involvement with schemes; according to Lynch, ?this close personal involvement had its obvious advantages, but it also made him vulnerable...when policies failed he appeared directly responsible in a way a less energetic leader would not have been?. This was the case with the Virgin Land scheme, where Khrushchev inspired hundreds of thousands of young Russians to immigrate to Siberia and cultivate previously unused land, without stopping to think that it was unused for a reason. ...read more.


Despite the increase in consumer goods, the legacy of Stalin?s Russia was such that industrial success was judged in terms of iron and steel output, and many prominent party members were unable to come to terms with heavy industry taking a backseat as other areas of the economy were allowed to develop. This lack of success resulted in Khrushchev losing the faith of the Central Committee as well as the military, his main source of support, and also largely contributed to his loss of power. Khrushchev was a persuasive Leader with a strong personality, but the party did not want such a figure after their last one of those brought his country and his people nothing but harm. Therefore Khrushchev, with his risk-taking and intuitive approach, came to power at the wrong time in the USSR and was not the right man to succeed the despot in 1953. The legacy of Stalinist Russia was just too much for one man to overcome in such a short space to time and it was Khrushchev?s mistake to attempt to so with such haste. With the party, according to McCauley ?yearning for a manager rather than a leader?, the Pravda?s derision of Khrushchev as ?alien to the party? in 1964 was entirely accurate; he was alien to what the party had become under Stalinist rule, and although his ability to be a successful Leader cannot be questioned, he could not be a successful Soviet Leader as the contrast Khrushchev marked from his predecessor, whether good or bad, was too much for the USSR to contemplate. Ciara Lally 22.06.2010 ...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. Why and with what success did Alexander 2 impose so many reforms?

    Keeping an army for a smaller number of years was more efficient and economical rather than keeping a million people standing. The changes in the military structure had certain implications on serfs that did not benefit the autocracy, as they could not allow free men to return home after 6 years well trained and good enough to start a revolution.

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

    the fact that the Bolsheviks only won one quarter of the population's vote during the height of their fame. * Lenin ruthlessly suppressed all strikes lead by Russian workers during the Red Terror. Grenville, J. A History of the World in the Twentieth Century.

  1. Hitler vs. Stalin: Who is a more destructive leader in terms of religious groups?

    Cause of the Holocaust The Holocaust is one of the main genocides Hitler was the cause of. One of the main factors blamed for causing the Holocaust was Hitler's medical condition. Hitler had a disease called "General Paresis". This can be defined as an impairment of mental function caused by damage to the brain from untreated syphilis (A.D.A.M.

  2. Stalin was a necessary evil for the Soviet Union With regard to this statement ...

    Snyder states the rebellion caused by collectivisation decreased the rates of agriculture output through killings and rebellions (such as killing livestock. In addition collectivisation did not fair economically, "It was not until 1950s that agriculture achieved the level of output desired by Stalin" therefore making the entire project unsuccessful as Stalin did not reach the output he desired.

  1. Why was it possible for Stalin to become the leader of the USSR?

    Such was the case with Josef Stalin who became the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union in 1928, holding the title General Secretary of the Communist Party. However, to perceive that Stalin's route to power was effortless is to make a critical mistake in the examination of events in the

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

    Further to this, the peasants were eventually fully socialised thanks to collectivisation, and another positive for Stalin was the speed of the process; by 1941, virtually all farms were collectivised. Eventually, Stalin?s aim was achieved as seventeen million peasants were freed up to work in towns and agricultural production increased

  1. History and Philosophy of Ukraine

    supplements the process of formation of Ukrainian national culture; institutional: a) the activities of members of the Cyril and Methodius (Kostomarov M., Shevchenko, P. Kulish, etc.), representatives of "old community" (70 years) and the first Ukrainian political emigration (Drahomanov, F.

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

    In order to industrialise, Stalin put in place Five-Year Plans. Once in power in 1929, Stalin made his aim of modernising Russia clear ? ??we are fifty years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this difference in ten years.

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