How important was Stalin compared to Lenin in creating the Soviet Union?

In this essay I am going to answer the question “how important was Stalin compared to Lenin in the creation of the Soviet Union?” I shall do this by referencing to sources from the time and explaining what I think that the show. Whilst also analysing the aforementioned sources to ensure my argument is as unbiased as possible.

Political Impact

When, in 1917, the Bolshevik party came to power, Russia was in the midst of World War 1. In order to resolve this conflict, Lenin formed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This ended the war but at a large cost. Source ‘A’ shows how large amounts of Prime Russian territory were lost to the Germans. This contravened Lenin’s promise when he came to power, of bread, peace and land, for the first time. It demonstrated that Lenin was prepared to limit the productive output of the Soviet Union in order to preserve peace. This is important because it shows that there were some issues that Lenin would not press, even for the good of the Soviet Union. I know that this source is reliable because it can be greatly cross referenced, and the treaty detailing the amount of territory lost by the Soviets can still be examined to this day. This means that the source is not bias and as such can be trusted. Also, an issue for Lenin was that the Bolsheviks did not win an overall majority in the constituent assembly this can be seen in source E. In order to create the Bolshevik controlled communist Russia, the constituent assembly was overthrown. Lenin was integral in this. Indeed, Michael lynch writes in his book reaction and revolution; Russia 1894 – 1924 (third edition) “there is no doubting the significance of Lenin’s return…” commenting that the Bolsheviks, including Stalin, “had been willing to work with the other reformist parties”. Lenin was prepared to make a stand, as is shown in a letter sent by him to the Petrograd and Moscow committees of the Bolshevik party in September of 1917, detailing one of his main reasons as; Bolsheviks “can and must take power into their own hands”. Trotsky later commented that if neither Lenin nor he had been present, “there would have been no October revolution”. These sources demonstrate that Lenin was prepared to overthrow the democratic assembly to gain power. As such it demonstrates that Lenin was fundamentally important in the Bolshevik party taking control of Russia. I think that the letter sent by letter is an unbiased source because it can be traced back to its original date and it also correlates with the Trotsky statement.

Stalin had a much different approach towards territory within the USSR. Following the second ‘great’ war of the 20th century, The USSR, under Stalin, greatly expanded. The creation of Comniform enabled Stalin to co-ordinate communist parties that could also keep an eye upon them. The map of Eastern Europe following World War 2 (source B) shows how much of Europe was now under the flag of the USSR. This demonstrates how determined Stalin was that the Soviet Union should expand. In fact, Stalin caused concern to both Churchill and Roosevelt at the Yalta conference, with his demands. This is evident in a letter sent by Churchill, just after the conference, to Roosevelt detailing that “the Soviet Union has become a danger to the free world”. This demonstrates how Stalin’s new powers were concerning two of the most powerful nations on the planet at the time. I think that this demonstrates how much of an influence Stalin’s foreign policy and political choices were having upon the USSR because the rest of the world was concerned of how powerful the USSR had become. This shows that Stalin was effective because of the power in the nation that he had built up. I feel that this source is not bias because it came directly from Winston Churchill to President Roosevelt and would not have been seen by the public. Therefore, no need for propaganda was required. Also, as the prime minister of Britain, Churchill would have a good knowledge of how Britain compared to Russia.

Stalin also instigated purges to rid the party o his political enemies. However, many people believe that he took this too far with the purges described by Jim Grant as “vengeful and dangerous”. I think that this demonstrates that the purges had more to do with personal feelings and insecurities than with actual threats to his control or the leadership of the USSR. This source, I think is not bias because it was written after the end of the USSR and as such, the author is unlikely to have been bias to give a certain opinion. Also, Stalin’s daughter commented ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

From this I can conclude that Lenin was much more cautious in how he conserved Land, whereas Stalin was prepared to annoy others to achieve his goals. The evidence of this is shown in that Stalin created a USSR that concerned some of the largest nations of the time. I think that this is due to its strength. Also, I think that Stalin recognised the importance of foreign affairs, and this is evident in the creation of Comniform. As such I think that we can conclude he was much more aware of the pressures being imposed by capitalist nations, and wanted to form nation that could compete on equal terms. I think that Comniform was essential for this because it showed how communism could spread and demonstrated Unity of the USSR. Whereas, | think that Lenin was more concerned about ensuring absolute internal stability and allowing communism to spread naturally. This I think is a reason that Stalin was more important than Lenin in the creation of the USSR.

Economic impact

The NEP, implemented because of the famine cause by the civil war, was a step towards capitalism (a diagram of this is shown as source ‘C’). In addition to this the value of factory production more than tripling from 2004 million roubles to 7739 million roubles as shown in ‘Reaction and revolutions: Russia 1881-1924 by Michal Lynch’. Bukharin, a leading Bolshevik, wrote that “the NEP will transform the Russian economy”. This shows me that Lenin had once again made a decision that was best for the people, over one that would be best for communism, this shows me that he may have utilised capitalism as a method of providing for his people, allowing them to motivate themselves to make a profit, rather than forcing them to submit to his will. It is worthy noting that he was an avid supporter of the NEP and as such, this source is largely biased. As such claims such as a transformation may not be particularly well founded. However, the fact that he supported the NEP, shows how it was considered to be a plan that would provide at least a partial solution to the problems. I think that this tells me that the new economic policy would be effective in restarting the economy and would gain public support. Indeed, this is shown in source F. However, I think that it demonstrates Lenin being weak in his dedication to communist ideas. As such I think that Lenin was short sighted in his efforts to raise public opinion and as such, in terms of the economy, he was not important in the creation of the communist Soviet Union.

Stalin took over the Soviet Union at a time when it was, in terms of development, far behind America and Britain. He introduced the five year plans. Speaking in 1932 about the first five-year plan, Stalin said:

”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.
We did not have a big industry for producing agricultural machinery. Now we have one”

This demonstrates that Stalin’s targets were effective, and this source is confirmed by source D, which details the increases in production. It also demonstrates that he was prepared to use targets and from my own knowledge, I know that these people were forced to achieve these or were fined. This demonstrates that Stalin was very important in the creation of the USSR because he was able to put modernisation above the happiness of the citizens. This source is likely to be bias because it is Stalin making the claims, and also Stalin who has imposed the five year plans, as such it is likely to be propaganda. However, the claim is confirmed by official archive figures and the diagram (source D), therefore making it less likely to be falsified.

Thus to conclude, I think that Lenin was extremely effective in the gradual implementation of communism, this is shown where he is prepared to implement a policy that would make Russia less communist in order to achieve his goals. This demonstrates understanding of affairs because he can compromise his plan for Russia to improve the lives of his citizens. Stalin, conversely, took a different approach. Russia was greatly less developed than Britain, Germany and The USA when Stalin took over. However, through communist techniques and scare mongering he managed to vastly improve the Soviet Union. This was a vastly different approach to Lenin’s NEP, and I think demonstrates how important Stalin was, because of his brutality, effective in massively improving the economy of the USSR. As such I think that Stalin is slightly more important in terms of economic decision making, because, although he gained control of the USSR at a time where there were no major issues, he managed to transform it using only communist ideology and brutality in the implementation of this, The foresight of this approach is now more evident, because Stalin preserved the communist ideals which defined the soviet Union, and as such his results were far superior. I do think that Stalin followed an Idea set up by Lenin, in war communism, but I think that Stalin was better prepared to deal with this. Although the reason for this preparation could be the control afforded to him after Lenin’s death. Overall, I think that Lenin was only effective because of the techniques that he implemented. As such, I think that Stalin’s overall effect was more drastic, and Stalin also caused the effect much more rapidly than Lenin had during his time.

Social

One of Lenin’s largest problems was his opponents. The use of the Cheka meant that many of Lenin’s opponents could be easily dealt with. Also, it became illegal to be a counter-revolutionary. According to official archive statistics, 7068 people were killed for this reason. This demonstrates how Lenin’s Cheka was effective and demonstrates Lenin’s relentless efforts to ensure that Russia stayed communist. This is important because it demonstrates that without Lenin, it is possible that communism would not have continued. I feel that this is unlikely to be bias because they were not published statistics which were likely be doctored, to raise public opinion on this issue, these were official archive figures, that no-one except those in charge were supposed to see. Overall, the entire Red Terror had become instrumental in the reign of the Bolsheviks, and this can be illustrated in that Lenin had stated before he came to power that a communist revolution “could not survive if it were not prepared to crush its enemies”. This was written by Michal Lynch in his book Reaction and revolutions: Russia 1881-1924. From this I can conclude that Lenin was destroying his enemies not out of hatred, but out of a desire to protect his society. I think that this is very important, because it demonstrates that Lenin was very important in creating the Soviet Union because he understood what he must do, and was prepared to make sacrifices to protect it. This source, I feel is unlikely to be bias, as the author has no censoring or fear about how his work will be perceived or what consequences shall be brought upon him if it does not conform to a specific viewpoint. As such I think that it can be trusted. However, in his book; a history of the Soviet Union, Geoffrey Hosking wrote that Lenin believed once he seized power “that power would be ipsofacto in the hands of the people”. This opinion agrees with the ideas that I have proposed, that Lenin’s revolution and subsequent actions were for the good of the people of the Soviet Union, and not simply for personal gain. Indeed he writes that the October revolution could have left Lenin in a worse position as it could “alienate everyone”. As such, I think that Lenin was very important in the creation of the Soviet Union because of the risk that he took to establish it.

Similarly to Lenin, Stalin also acted decisively to achieve his goals. After he took control of the USSR, Stalin instigated a series of Purges, supposedly designed to rid the nation of traitors, for this he utilised show trials to install fear within his citizens and used his secret police to further enhance this image of always being watched. Indeed Robert Tucker writes in his ‘Stalin in power’ that Stalin “became more embittered, solitary, vengeful and dangerous”. As such we can conclude that this historian thinks that Stalin instigated the Purges and show trials because of his own insecurities rather than because of genuine threats to the party or the Union. Indeed this view point is continued in John Arch-Getty’s thought written in ‘origins of the Great purges’ that Stalin’s actions “were catalytic” in a process where politicians were “accustomed to arresting people”. As such we can see that Stalin was a key factor in a process that arrested people because that it what it was designed to do, and not because they had committed crimes. As such, based upon these two quotes, I think that Stalin chose to arrest or ‘purge’ people not because they were a threat to the Union, but because he suspected that they did not agree with his views. This idea would confirm with the two sources. Also, if we analyse the provenance of the sources, their validity can be further confirmed, the former being written in 1992, and the latter in 1985. As such, I think that Tucker is not bias because at that time the USSR had been disbanded, and as such there would be few pressures to reflect a certain viewpoint. Also, at the time the facts of the Soviet Union were beginning to reach the democratic world, and as such he would want to reflect the truth. Also, I think that Getty’s ideas are fairly reliable, because even though the USSR was still around, Stalin had been dead for decades, and as such there would be few direct pressures to convey him in a certain way.

However, the purges were only part of Stalin’s social implications. Stalin’s secret police (the NKVD) were also an instrument of terror that he happily utilised. Indeed, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in his book: ‘Gulag Archipelago’ that the “NKVD men were standing in the hall, waiting to see who quit first”, as such this demonstrates that Stalin’s methods for arresting people were not based upon any crime accept from who ‘sat down first’ and things that they thought this represented in a persons personality. Indeed Solzhenitsyn goes on to write that it indicated “independent people” and that the man was later arrested. As such we can see that Stalin’s methods were not simply used because of a threat, but to inspire fear into his work force, and increase productivity.

To conclude, I think that Lenin’s social impact upon the Soviet Union was more positive than Stalin’s. Due to the above research I think that Lenin only did things that would negatively impact his citizens when it was absolutely necessary for the long term good of the Soviet Union. However, I think that Stalin’s ideas were more effective in achieving the required conditions for a communist society to run effectively. This is because Stalin effectively destroyed all opposition, whereas Lenin did have opposition. In a communist society a lack of opposition is a prerequisite for functionality. As such, I think that for the overall creation of the Soviet Union, Stalin was more important because he allowed communism to keep functioning effectively. Indeed, we can see that the party itself was ‘cleansed’ of members who did not agree with Stalin. This is important in the teachings of Marx, which is what the entire Soviet Union was based on. As such I think that Stalin’s aggressive tactics were necessary and justified in creating the successful Soviet Union. This is a view shared by Jim Grant in “Stalin and the soviet union” where he writes of “a degree of bureaucracy…” resulting in “…local officials not carrying out Moscow’s instructions”. As such we can see conflicts starting to arise within the Soviet Leadership. I think that this could have been disastrous for the Soviet Union, and as such it demonstrates a need for the Purges and also demonstrates why I think that Stalin was integral in the creation of the Soviet Union.

Thus in conclusion I believe that Stalin was more important in the creation of the Soviet Union because he managed to transform Lenin’s ‘social experiment into a fully functioning nation capable of competing with the most developed nations on the Planet. This is evident in his economic choices of targets and punishments, which were far more effective than Lenin’s return to capitalist type ideals. As such I think that Stalin caused communism to work, rather than finding a ‘work around’ for problems that would undoubtedly occur again. Indeed, Lenin’s method were not sustainable, if the Soviet Union was to remain communist and as such Stalin’s new approach was important for the continuation of communism. Also, his methods outperformed the capitalist methods used in the west, and as such I think that Stalin was essential to the creation of the economically powerful Soviet Union that was created.

Also, politically Stalin was far more active in the pursuit of foreign affairs. Indeed the creation of Comniform demonstrated this. However Lenin was also effective when he initiated the second revolution to overthrow the provisional government; however, I think that Stalin’s ability to ensure international issues were controlled and the expansion that he caused in communism across Eastern Europe demonstrated active attempts to extend the reach of communism and as such improve the USSR, rather than the natural spread of communism favoured by Lenin. I think that this was important to ensure more land and more workers could be gained from Eastern Europe, and as such the USSR was improved greatly. This I think is outweighed by the requirement of Lenin’s effect to overthrow the provisional government and to begin a communist government. Without this, the USSR would never have been formed, and all the achievements of Stalin would never have occurred. Because, even if he had gained power, Stalin would not have inherited control of a people he could dominate so easily, and most of his methods would not be effective in a democratic situation. As such, politically I think that Lenin was more important that Stalin.

Socially, I think that Stalin was more important than Lenin. This is because Lenin did not effectively deal with opposition. This mean’s that often his policies were questioned and took longer to become effective. However, Stalin initiated purges of the Party so that any opposition would be destroyed. This had an undesirable side effect of removing, and often killing, many innocent people. My opinion of this is that it was necessary to ensure that communism functioned at full efficiency and the USSR became one of the most advanced nations in the World. As such, I think that Stalin was more important t in the creation of the Soviet Union than Lenin.

Overall, I think that Stalin was marginally more important than Lenin because of the decisions he made and policies he supported. This is also a view shared in Stalin and the Soviet Union by Jim grant, writing that “Stalin’s excesses were tempered by his foresight.” I think this demonstrates the Reason that Stalin was more important than Lenin. He was prepared to make decisions based upon their implications in the future, whereas Lenin was more concerned with their immediate repercussions.