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

To what extent should the success of Stalin in the leadership struggle between 1924-1930 be seen as a surprising development?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Historical Investigation To what extent should the success of Stalin in the leadership struggle between 1924-1930 be seen as a surprising development? Written By Mary Smith Candidate number: 002589-006 Date completed: 14/8/2007 Total Word Count: 1987 Table of Contents 1. Outline of the Investigation p1 2. Summary of Evidence p2 3. Evaluation of Sources p4 4. Analysis p5 5. Conclusion p8 6. Appendix p9 7. Bibliography p12 PART A - Outline of the Investigation. To what extent should the success of Stalin in the leadership struggle between 1924-1930 be seen as a surprising development? Viewing Stalin's rise to power as a surprise is largely dependant on whether he orchestrated and manipulated the factions in the power struggle between 1924 and 1930. The main interpretations of the power struggle claim either that Stalin was a cold and calculating tactician who planned his rise to power or that his rise to power was circumstantial. The investigation will examine the following information: i. Lenin's Political Testament ii. The power struggle between Trotsky and Stalin. iii. Fall of the left iv. Fall of the right v. Stalin as the Moderate force in the Party An analysis of these events should enable a judgement to be made as to whether Stalin manipulated events and consequently whether his rise to power can be viewed with any degree of astonishment. Part B - Summary of evidence 1. Lenin's Political Testament * Lenin witnessed his wife, Krupskaya, abused by Stalin; concluded Stalin was untrustworthy with his growing influence over the party1. ...read more.

Middle

This was first demonstrated in the "triumvirate" between Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev - and their followers - which always managed to outvote the so-called "Trotskyists" within the politburo, leading to Trotsky's subsequent exclusion31. History repeated itself when Stalin gained a majority against the "leftists" - Kamenev and Zinoviev - by forming an alliance with the right32. Consequently the left, because of disagreements over the NEP and party politics, was also accused of factionalism and lost all positions of power33. Thirdly, Stalin then opposed the right wing of the party. He had gained the majority in the Politburo by replacing his opposition with his avid supporters34 so that when a disagreement about the continuation of the NEP arose, the right was also denounced as factionalists and excluded35 - Stalin had won his bid for power. The mistakes of others also contributed to Stalin's dramatic rise to power. Stalin was an opportunist, utilising the mistakes of others to gather support. The containment of Stalin's influence originally rested in Trotsky's hands, but Trotsky did not accept the gravity of the situation and made some fundamental errors such as not attending Lenin's funeral or even writing a telegram in his honour, perhaps highlighting his lack of political sensitivity36. This was a dangerous omission for Trotsky as a campaign, headed by Stalin, was waged against him within the Politburo based on his disrespect37. Trotsky's controversial article in "Lessons of October", which expressed the unpopular and radical view of "permanent Revolution", was also used against him during the leadership struggle38. ...read more.

Conclusion

He knows how to meet them on their own ground, he speaks their language and he knows how to lead them...if everything continues to go automatically as it is going now, Stalin will just as automatically become dictator." Source 6 McCauley, M., 1993, Longman History of Russia; The Soviet Union 1917-1991, Longman, London, p75. "Politburo opponents of Stalin had had little practical experience of politics before 1917. They had not mounted the party ladder step by step and had not had to claw their way up; 1917 had made them, at a stroke, key political figures. They were singularly ill-equipped to recognise a party climber when they saw one. They were all superior to Stalin, or so they thought, despite what Lenin had written in his Testament. Their fierce intellectual independence ill prepared them for caucus politics. Stalin was moderate and methodical, not to say pedestrian, but he was the only one skilled at building tactical alliances and this put him head and shoulders above the rest. This did not automatically guarantee success: he had to reflect the aspirations of the party and that party wanted socialism. On the face of it the left should have won between 1925 and 1927 and in any case the distance between the right and the left was narrow in 1927 when Bukharin moved against the kulak. Convergence might have resulted if domestic and foreign peace had been guaranteed. However, Stalin used the imaginary threat of war in 1927 to stifle debate and exaggerate the differences with the left." 3. ...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. Marked by a teacher

    How far do Trotsky(TM)s own misjudgments account for his failure in the power struggle ...

    4 star(s)

    In my opinion he is the greatest orator of our time...In some respects Trotsky is greater than Lenin: he is more brilliant, clearer, more active." Even though Trotsky was favored by Lenin, had control of the Red Army, and was a respected intellectual, he still underestimated Stalin and was outmaneuvered by his tactics.

  2. French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon - revision notes

    Many of the deputies left to join the Club of Feuillants. Maximilien Robespierre assumed a position of prominence (zajal wysokie stanowisko) in Jacobin Club. 2) Club of Feuillants-> group of modern members of the Jacobins formed it. It was a conservatic political club.

  1. Was Lenin a success or a failure to Russia?

    It was said, that 'this treaty is only temporary, Russia would gain much more in an aftermath after the worldwide revolution of workers takes place'. They escaped an upcoming victory and involved their country into a war where neither side could actually win.

  2. Italian Unification Revision Notes. Italian Politics in 1815

    Issued an ultimatum, which was rejected. � On 29 April Austria declared war on Piedmont. Few Italians outside Piedmont rallied to the cause and Piedmont could raise only 60,000 men. However, Napoleon III kept his word and declared war on Austria. Over 100,000 French troops, ineptly led by Napoleon III, crossed the Alps.

  1. Rise of Castro and Stalin

    Although both men used propaganda as a significant tactic to gaining power, the difference is visible between Stalin's extravagance and Castro's simple reliance on his talent. Political manoeuvring was also important for both Castro and Stalin. Both men possessed characters which could not stand anyone of superior talent to themselves,

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

    Stalin's government was a totalitarian one; this meant that only the ruling government was allowed within the state. In this case Stalin's communist party was supreme and all other opposition and criticism would be annihilated. He held many purges against his rivals, these purges demonstrated how this insecure leader could be so evil in order to keep him in power.

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

    Alexander the Traditionalist 1865- Ministerial changes 1. Replaced reforming members with men such as Shuvalov who was put in charge of the Third Section. 2. Shuvalov?s appointment symbolizes the return to a conservative atmosphere and repression. Educational reforms 1. Tolstoy (Minister of Education)

  2. The History and Development of the American Dream

    Yet the real difference is that the Dream has become more of an entitlement than something to work towards. Many Americans no longer entertain a vision for the future that includes time, sweat, and ultimate success. Rather, they covet the shortcut to wealth.

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