Free Essay

Why Were Stalin’s Opponents Unable to Prevent Him from Becoming Leader of the Ussr by 1929?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By ejl123
Words 1884
Pages 8
Why were Stalin’s opponents unable to prevent him from becoming leader of the USSR by 1929?
Within this essay question I’m going to be discussing four different factors that aided Joseph Stalin in becoming leader of the USSR by 1929. These four factors are Trotsky’s errors, errors of others, powerbases and Stalin’s own skills. Personally I believe, based on my current knowledge of all four factors, that the powerbases is going to be a highly significant factor in terms of why Stalin’s opponents were unable to prevent him becoming leader. However, the other three factors are still very important and also played a role in helping Stalin. Therefore, I will be discussing all four of the factors and what effects they had.
Errors made by Leon Trotsky were some of the main reasons why Stalin was able to become leader of the USSR by 1929. After Lenin’s death in 1924 there was wide speculation that Trotsky, head of the red army would succeed Lenin. Lenin wrote a testament outlining his opinions on the head Bolsheviks, and Stalin was described as being very dangerous and should be dismissed from the party immediately. However despite this, Stalin eventually became the leader of the USSR. The reason why Trotsky was the most likely candidate to succeed Lenin was because he was very popular among young communists, this was due to his revolutionary heroism in 1905, 1917 and during the civil war, coupled with his stirring speeches. However, despite the fact that Trotsky was clearly more suitable, Stalin still managed to outmanouver him into becoming leader of the USSR. This was because of a multitude of reasons, starting with the fact that from 1917 onwards Trotsky openly and rather viciously criticised many leading Bolsheviks, this lead too many people within the party to hate him. Furthermore, his arrogant nature and aloofness earned him even more enemies within the party.in 1922 he was offered the position of becoming Lenin’s deputy but he declined in the fear that his religious beliefs would gain him further opposition within the party as Anti-Semitism was rife in the USSR at this time, this would’ve just made him look bad in Lenin’s eyes. Another bad move on Trotsky’s part was that in 1924 he failed to attend the funeral of Lenin due to Stalin telling him the date far too late for him to travel to get there in time. This makes Trotsky appear extremely disrespectful, this links to one of the other reasons why Stalin’s opponents were unable to prevent him becoming leader, which is his own personal qualities and tactical behaviour. By making it so that Trotsky couldn’t attend the funeral Stalin managed to make himself look like a much better candidate. Carrying on with Trotsky’s errors, from 1923-1925 Trotsky failed to build up any kind of powerbase because he naively believed that the party would make the ‘correct’ decision and pick him, this meant Stalin could manoeuvre himself into a strong position as he had a brilliant powerbase set up, another one of the reasons he was able to triumph as leader. In 1925, Trotsky began to publicise his belief in “permanent revolution” which was a very risky belief to have, he openly admits he wants to end the NEP even though it was working which made him even more unpopular, he openly criticised the growth in bureaucracy which made all the bureaucrats support Stalin so they could keep their jobs due to Trotsky suggesting the should be sacked and he resigned as Commissar for War to prove he had no desire to use the Red army to his advantage, however because of this move he had no political powerbase anymore and Stalin was once again at an advantage. Eventually, all of Trotsky’s mistakes as well as Stalin’s adeptness and skills lead to Joseph Stalin becoming the new leader of the USSR, Trotsky was then dismissed, exiled and murdered in 1941.
Powerbases was another contributor to the fact that Stalin was able to become leader of the USSR by 1929. Another likely candidate other than Trotsky was Bukharin as he was very popular and one foreign visitor even predicted that he would actually be the one who would succeed Lenin. Bukharin was the party theorist from 1917 as well as the editor of the two main newspapers, ‘Pravda’ and ‘communist’. This enabled him to influence party opinion and deny all of his opponent’s access to the press. This was a strong party powerbase for Bukharin, however he had no government powerbase due to the fact that he wasn’t part of Lenin’s Sovnarkom. One of the least appealing contenders was Zinoviev as he was seen as being too full of himself and vain. He also wasn’t part of the Sovnarkom which meant he had no government powerbase but he was Comintern from 1919 which boosted his status within the Bolshevik party. Another contender was Kamenev who, throughout Lenin’s illness, acted as head of the Sovnarkom. However, what put Stalin ahead of the rest was that he had a large powerbase within the Bolshevik party, this was because he was general secretary of the party and head of the central control committee. This meant that he had control over the party machine and could therefore rely on the support of the party members when he needed votes at the party congresses, as they were dependent on him for promotion within the party. It also meant that he could appoint his allies to government positions which would have resulted in Stalin having more power as he had lots of support and popularity. The result of Stalin having a large powerbase was that at the party congresses, he often outvoted his opponents into getting the policies passed that he wanted. This could be argued as the reason why he defeated his opponents such as Trotsky.
A third reason for Stalin’s success was the errors of others, such as Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. So, what Kamenev and Zinoviev did wrong was that they joined an alliance with Trotsky in 1925 and called themselves the United Opposition, despite the fact that Trotsky was an old enemy and they’d previously been a part of the Triumvirate with Stalin and completely slandered Trotsky. This made the two of them appear to be extremely indecisive. The united opposition is ineffective and all three members are accused of creating a faction, this breached the ban on factionalism put forward by Lenin. As a result in 1927 Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled from the communist party. However, Stalin seized this opportunity to get rid of Trotsky and allowed Zinoviev and Kamenev to re-join the party if they agreed to perform mea culpa (admitting to being wrong), the two of them made a public apology which discredits them, their power and their influence. The two of them remain in the party but Stalin is now the supreme leader due to their idiocy. Stalin is now so powerful that nobody has a chance of opposing him and his policies. One of Bukharin’s errors was that he joined an alliance with Rykov and Tomsky called the Right Opposition but they were far too late, Stalin was already very powerful by this point and the United Opposition had been torn apart. Furthermore, Bukharin continued to believe in the NEP which was not popular with higher Party groups, and proposal to achieve socialism at a slow speed left him highly vulnerable to attacks. Stalin attacked Bukharin's views by portraying them as being capitalist deviation and declaring that the revolution would be at risk without a strong policy that encouraged rapid industrialization. Having helped Stalin achieve unimpeded power against the Left Opposition in the past, Bukharin found himself easily outmanoeuvred by Stalin. Yet Bukharin still played to Stalin's strength by maintaining the appearance of unity within the Party leadership. Meanwhile, Stalin used his control of the Party machine to replace Bukharin's supporters in the Rightist power base in Moscow, trade unions, and Comintern. Stalin was able to seize power due to the errors made by Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin, he was smart and used their errors to his advantage.
Finally, a fourth reason for Stalin’s success was his own personal skills and his political adeptness. Stalin was a pragmatist which allowed him to put his true beliefs to one side in order to achieve his goals. Firstly, when the Lenin enrolment is introduced in 1923 till 1925 it’s done under the watchful eye of Stalin. This gave him the opportunity to only recruit people that owed him their loyalty. Plus most of the people enrolling were poorly educated and lacked intelligence, this meant that they could be easily influenced by Stalin. Privileges associated with joining the party were linked to Stalin, therefore people were more inclined to support him. He was able to use his position of being able to vet the enrolment to his advantage and gain more supporters. This links to errors of others because Lenin made the error of trusting Stalin with such a task and it also links to powerbases because Stalin was able to build up his powerbase due to the fact that he took advantage of the Lenin enrolment. Furthermore, in March 1923 when the triumvirate was formed (alliance between Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin) Stalin decided to take a back seat which ended up being a very tactical move. Zinoviev and Kamenev both openly attack Trotsky through various speeches and articles believing that Trotsky was a danger to their positions within the party. However, little did they know that the real threat was Stalin, who they considered to be an ally. By taking a back seat Stalin was able to give the impression that he was above all their pettiness and squabbling but he was really playing the strings and setting them up for a downfall. They later realise this but by then it’s far too later for them. In 1925 Stalin publicises his view in ‘socialism in one country’. His clever use of propaganda means he’s able to portray his idea as a sensible and patriotic policy that will keep the Bolshevik party in power. Stalin also says that he supports the continuation of the NEP as he’s on the right side of the party at this time, this is a clear example of how Stalin uses his pragmatism to his advantage as he swaps between the Left and Right wing to achieve his aims. By this point Stalin is in a brilliant position, which evidently works out well for him as he becomes leader of the USSR by 1929.
Overall, I feel like all four factors has a significant impact upon Stalin’s rise to power and how he was unable to be stopped. However in my opinion, I think that the most significant reason was the fact Stalin had such an incredible and loyal powerbase due to him positions within the party, his powerbases allowed him to gain power and supporters. Due to his influence we know that he easily outvoted majority of his opponents. We also know that he had the power to promote his friends and supporters to high positions within the party. Taking these points into account I can identify that Stalin’s government and party powerbases were essential for his success.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Why Were Stalin’s Opponents Unable to Prevent Him from Becoming the Leader of the Ussr by 1929?

...Why were Stalin’s opponents unable to prevent him from becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929? The communist party was split in half during the 20’s with Trotsky and Zinoviev on the left and Bukharin on the right. Stalin however separated himself from both groups and was in the middle. Stalin knew that if he was going to succeed Lenin as supreme leader of the communist party he would have to defeat Trotsky, as he posed the largest threat to him. Trotsky was seen as the most likely successor to Lenin by members of the communist party in 1924. Trotsky was the leader of the red army during both the October revolution and the civil war; he was seen to be Lenin’s right hand man. Stalin however was seen to be in the administrative role and was described as having a dull personality. Trotsky also was an intellect and was a brilliant speaker; both qualities Stalin did not possess. Trotsky however was unpopular, he was from a wealthy Jewish family and was very arrogant resulting from his intellectual background. Trotsky did not convert from the Menshevik’s to the communists until the summer of 1917 which was seen by some as evidence of his lack of commitment to the party. ...

Words: 895 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Why Were Stalin's Opponents Unable to Prevent Him from Becoming the Leader of the Ussr by 1929?

...Why were Stalin's opponents unable to prevent him from becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929? Stalin and 4 other men ; Bukharin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were competing to become leader of Russia after Lenin’s death in 1924. Since you couldn’t vote because it was democratic it was harder to choose become the leader of Russia. One of the reasons that his opponents were unable to prevent him from becoming leader of the USSR was Stalin used the job of General Secretary to promote peoples loyalty to him, to remove from the party people who were disloyal and to collect information on every party member. After Lenin's death he waited, allowing other Politburo members to state their preferred policies - he then ganged up on groups of them, using his alliances and his party contacts to destroy the opposition. His did this twice in the 1920s, destroying Trotsky and his supporters and Zinoviev and Kamenev and their supporters. This left him as the ruler of Russia by about 1929. Another reason is Lenin’s testament. The communist didn’t reveal what the testament said. In the testament Lenin said this about Stalin. "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage,......

Words: 715 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Consolidation of Power Russia

...Why were stalin’s opponents unable to prevent him from becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929? For five years following the death of Lenin, a power struggle took place in the USSR. The struggle was not just abut which person should become leader, it was also about the policies that party should follow and keeping some people out of power. Joseph Stalin emerged in 1929 as the victor of this struggle with the due to his ability to manipulate the party machine, his devious tactics to undermine his opponents and his popular policies and ideologies which appealed to the average Bolshevik member which made it nearly unpreventable for his opponents to stop him. Due to Stalins ability to manipulate the party machine,. Stalin used his position as general secretary, a job that few wanted due to seeming lack of importance with this job however, Stalin was able to increase his hold over the Bolshevik Party. In the 12th Congress, 1923, Stalin by using his position as General Secretary was able to influence who attended the Party Congress leading to a 30% of the members there being under Stalin’s influence. This was very significant because for someone who aimed to lead and control the party and government needed to have the support of majority in Congress and Politburo. Furthermore Stalin also increased his power of the government by being head of the Central Control Commission. Through this job Stalin was able to discipline any supporters of his rivals: For example, in the 15th......

Words: 1001 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Hello

... | | | |37 | |Unit A2 1: Option 3, Liberalism and Nationalism 1815–1914 | | |Unit A2 1: Option 4, Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland 1800–1900 |51 | |Unit A2 1: Option 5, The Clash of Ideologies in Europe 1900–2000 |67 | Introduction CCEA has developed new GCE specifications for first teaching from September 2008. This scheme of work has been designed to support you in introducing the new specification and was produced by practicing teachers who will be teaching the specification. This A2 Scheme of work provides suggestions for organising and supporting students’ learning activities. It is intended to assist you in developing your own schemes of work and should not be considered as being prescriptive or exhaustive. Please remember that this...

Words: 15150 - Pages: 61

Premium Essay

History Ib Review Notes

...decline of Byzantium came a wave of conquest from the East, the Mongols until the 15th century (Tatars). To a large extent, the Mongols allowed Russians to maintain their way of life: - Slavic based languages including writing system (Cyrillic) - Orthodox religion The Russians adopted much from Asian culture and this led western Europeans to think less of the Russians Geographically Russia was isolated from the rest of Europe: - Entirely land locked (mostly) - Huge Plains of Eastern Europe prevented overland travel During these early years there were a series of muscovite princes based in Moscow and called themselves Tsars. By the 17th century the Romanov family became the ruling dynasty: - Alexander I (1801-1825) - Nicholas I (1825-1855) - Alexander II (1855-1881) - Alexander III (1881-1894) - Nicholas II (1894-1917) Under the rule of Peter the Great (1689-1728) Russia grew greatly in size and entered the European World www.ibscrewed.org The Russia of 1800 was one of the greatest autocracies in Europe where: - The Tsar’s rule was absolute - There was a small, but powerful landowning elite - The vast majority of the population existed in a state called serfdom Serfdom: refers to the legal and economic status of peasants (serf). In Russia Serfdom practically equaled slavery - In 1646, landowners registered peasants living on their land. From then they are considered property of the......

Words: 32400 - Pages: 130

Premium Essay

Modern Ww1 Notes

...Front Reasons for the development of the Stalemate A stalemate is an end of a war movement. It refers to the deadlock resulting from high levels of defence. The stalemate developed from four major reasons: i. The Faults of the Schlieffen Plan ii. The Faults of Plan XVII iii. Problems with Communications and Tactics iv. Problems with the High Command • The Faults in • There was an incredible reliance on speed – quick defeat of the France and a slow response by Russia Schlieffen • Unexpectedly strong resistance by Belgian forces – sabotaged Plan railway lines • Strong resistance from French • Troops were diverted from the West to the Eastern front • The “hammer swing” was shortened, so they approached Paris from the East which was expected • The Treaty of London was disregarded as a scrap of paper • Germans weren’t adequately trained for modern warfare strategies • The Faults in • French underestimated number of soldiers available to Plan XVII Germany • French were preoccupied with revenge for Alsace-Lorraine • Insufficient forces were given to the French left wing • Too much attention was on offensive tactics • Officer training was poor • Belgian and British armies were small • Napoleonic Wave Assault (continuous assault) occurred in open countryside=decimation • Problems • Rail was quick, but too few tracks were available to be used with Tactics • Guerilla attacks frequently destroyed the rail infrastructure and • Muddy conditions...

Words: 20870 - Pages: 84

Free Essay

Frontline

...Y Understanding the PDS Kerala: Power of literacy Bihar: Coupon fiasco Jharkhand: Strong revival Chhattisgarh: Loud no to cash E CONOM Y Losing momentum Interview: C. Rangarajan, Chairman, PMEAC CL IM A TE C H A N G E Uncertain stand in Durban CONTR OV E R S Y Mullaperiyar dispute: Deep distrust Fallout of fear OBITU A R Y Humble genius: Mario Miranda Korea’s Kim Jong-il COL U M N Bhaskar Ghose: Looking back Praful Bidwai: Durban greenwash 96 98 101 104 106 RELA T ED S TOR I E S Language barrier 14 Poet of the Padma17 The other Tagore 22 Unique landlord 29 Man of science 37 110 112 114 120 124 129 132 83 94 W O RLD A F F A I RS The American occupation troops withdraw from Iraq after waging a ‘dumb...

Words: 77117 - Pages: 309

Free Essay

One Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.

...E SSAYS ON TWENTIETH-C ENTURY H ISTORY In the series Critical Perspectives on the Past, edited by Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig Also in this series: Paula Hamilton and Linda Shopes, eds., Oral History and Public Memories Tiffany Ruby Patterson, Zora Neale Hurston and a History of Southern Life Lisa M. Fine, The Story of Reo Joe: Work, Kin, and Community in Autotown, U.S.A. Van Gosse and Richard Moser, eds., The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America Joanne Meyerowitz, ed., History and September 11th John McMillian and Paul Buhle, eds., The New Left Revisited David M. Scobey, Empire City: The Making and Meaning of the New York City Landscape Gerda Lerner, Fireweed: A Political Autobiography Allida M. Black, ed., Modern American Queer History Eric Sandweiss, St. Louis: The Evolution of an American Urban Landscape Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past Sharon Hartman Strom, Political Woman: Florence Luscomb and the Legacy of Radical Reform Michael Adas, ed., Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History Jack Metzgar, Striking Steel: Solidarity Remembered Janis Appier, Policing Women: The Sexual Politics of Law Enforcement and the LAPD Allen Hunter, ed., Rethinking the Cold War Eric Foner, ed., The New American History. Revised and Expanded Edition E SSAYS ON _ T WENTIETH- C ENTURY H ISTORY Edited......

Words: 163893 - Pages: 656

Free Essay

Bloodlines of the Illuminati

...to those in the world who love the truth. This is a book for lovers of the Truth. This is a book for those who are already familiar with my past writings. An Illuminati Grand Master once said that the world is a stage and we are all actors. Of course this was not an original thought, but it certainly is a way of describing the Illuminati view of how the world works. The people of the world are an audience to which the Illuminati entertain with propaganda. Just one of the thousands of recent examples of this type of acting done for the public was President Bill Clinton’s 1995 State of the Union address. The speech was designed to push all of the warm fuzzy buttons of his listening audience that he could. All the green lights for acceptance were systematically pushed by the President’s speech with the help of a controlled congressional audience. The truth on the other hand doesn’t always tickle the ear and warm the ego of its listeners. The light of truth in this book will be too bright for some people who will want to return to the safe comfort of their darkness. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I deal with real facts, not theory. Some of the people I write about, I have met. Some of the people I expose are alive and very dangerous. The darkness has never liked the light. Yet, many of the secrets of the Illuminati are locked up tightly simply because secrecy is a way of life. It is such a way of life, that they resent the Carroll Quigleys and the James H. Billingtons who want......

Words: 206477 - Pages: 826

Premium Essay

Bas Bhat

...CRIME, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE IN A COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT This book aims to honour the work of Professor Mirjan Damaška, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School and a prominent authority for many years in the fields of comparative law, procedural law, evidence, international criminal law and Continental legal history. Professor Damaška’s work is renowned for providing new frameworks for understanding different legal traditions. To celebrate the depth and richness of his work and discuss its implications for the future, the editors have brought together an impressive range of leading scholars from different jurisdictions in the fields of comparative and international law, evidence and criminal law and procedure. Using Professor Damaška’s work as a backdrop, the essays make a substantial contribution to the development of comparative law, procedure and evidence. After an introduction by the editors and a tribute by Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, the book is divided into four parts. The first part considers contemporary trends in national criminal procedure, examining cross-fertilisation and the extent to which these trends are resulting in converging practices across national jurisdictions. The second part explores the epistemological environment of rules of evidence and procedure. The third part analyses human rights standards and the phenomenon of hybridisation in transnational and international criminal law. The final part of the book assesses......

Words: 195907 - Pages: 784