Stalin

1
Stalins rise to power
2
Stalins Strengths

• Comrade Card Index. Was Stalins control over
  the party machine the crucial factor in his rise
  to power? (2004)
• Stalin rose to power in the 1920s only because
  he was a skilled political manipulator.
  Discuss.(2002)

• Mackerras argues that Stalins rise to power was
  achieved by his adroit manipulation of the party
  discipline .
• Philips argues that Stalin did not create the
  party structure, but he was able to use it to his
  advantage.
• McCauley argues that The party machine was
  Stalins power base
• Boobbyer argues that Stalins control of the
  party grew so powerful that it was very
  difficult to express a dissonant word publicly.
• Philips argues that this quality helped him gain
  power due to the Communist Partys fear of a
  Bonaparte figure emerging.

3
Was it Stalins strengths or was it luck?

• McCauley argues that Luck was also a major
  factor in allowing Stalin to come into power.
  Lenins death meant that he had no one above him,
  keeping him in check and the death of
  Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, also meant
  that Stalin could gain support within the
  political police and use this support against his
  opponents. However, Pipes argues that Stalin was
  in an unrivalled position before the death of
  Lenin and that this position had already assured
  his future career.

4
General Secretary

• Payne argues that the post of General Secretary
  was the greatest of all gifts he Stalin
  received from Lenin.
• Service argues that Stalins rise to supreme
  power was not solely down to his manipulations,
  he argues that Stalin had the ability to convince
  the members of the Central Committee that he was
  a suitable politician to follow
• Haugen argues that he set up a network of spies
  to keep an eye on thousands of party members and
  he would also wiretap officials phones such as
  Lenins. This was how Stalin knew that he and
  Trotsky were discussing their worries about
  Stalin.
• Wood states that it was a springboard to
  dictatorship
• Payne argues that he was the chief filing clerk.

5
Liaison Officer between the Politburo and Orgburo
(1919)

• Wood argues that these positions gave him
  significant administrative and even executive
  power, he argues that it was the accumulation
  and manipulation of this power that led to
  Stalins rise to power.
• This involved the overseeing of the work of all
  government departments.
• This permitted to him monitor all personnel and
  policy
• Commissar of Nationalities (1918 to 1922)
• The basic objective of the Commissar was to set
  up an institution which was to try to win over
  the non-Russians in the former empire to the
  Sonarkom
• National Policy Payne argues that Stalin had
  not the least intention of acting upon it
• J. Smith also argues that this role gave Stalin
  the opportunity to exercise leadership
• was only responsible for 22 of the population of
  the Russian Socialist Federated Socialist
  Republic (RSFSR), and this didnt cover the
  Ukraine, Byelorussia and Transcaucasia, which
  were all independent Soviet republics.

6
Lenins funeral

• Waugh maintains the argument that Trotsky was
  tricked by Stalin into missing Lenins funeral,
  therefore Stalin was an opportunist.
• Laver argues that Stalin was able to strengthen
  his own position by establishing himself as
  Lenins disciple.
• However, Tumarkin argues that Stalin truly
  believed that Trotsky could not make it back in
  time and she argues that the funeral was only
  delayed, after Trotsky had been contacted, by a
  day to accommodate the many travellers who
  needed more time to reach Moscow, and to allow
  for the hurried construction of a temporary crypt
  by the Kremlin wall
• Service argues that, despite Trotskys claim
  years later that he had been tricked by Stalin,
  he does admit that it did not make much
  difference.

7
Lenin Enrolments

• By 1924 the Communist Party had only around
  350,000 members
• The scheme added around 240,000 new members, 86
  of them were classed as workers by social
  situation.
• McCauley argues that the new members would feel
  loyal to Stalin, also, their political education
  was in the hands of men appointed by Stalin and
  his associates.
• Philips argues that the new members were poorly
  educated and political naïve

8
Leadership contest-TrotskyTo what extent was
Trotsky responsible for his own downfall in the
1920s? (2008)To what extent was Stalins rise to
power due to his opponents weakness? (2005)

• Conquest argues that Stalin seized every
  opportunity and managed to outmanoeuvre his main
  opponent Trotsky.
• Service calls him the man who could rally the
  forces.
• Lenins Testament perhaps the most capable man
  in the present Central Committee Trotsky
  has displayed excessive self-assurance
• Carr argues that Trotskys main weakness was that
  he could not lead his fellow Bolsheviks.
• When Trotsky was bored in the Politburo he would
  sit and read a French novel
• Trotsky did not have much support from other
  Bolsheviks as he had been a Menshevik until 1917
• Deutscher says that it seemed to Trotsky almost
  a bad joke that Stalin, the wilful and shy but
  shabby and inarticulate man in the background
  should be his rival.
• Fitzpatrick argues that although Trotsky could be
  seen as the odd one out in the power struggle, he
  was an ambitious contender for the top position.

9
Zinoviev and Kamenev

• Zinoviev Philips argues that he was an
  unsavoury careerist, weak, vain and ambitious
  and only too eager to occupy the empty throne.
• Serge agrees stating that he gave an impression
  of flabbinessirresolutionsimply a demagogue.
• Zinoviev and Kamenev were both seen to be
  disloyal to the Bolsheviks as they had been
  opposed to the armed uprising in October 1917.
  They had a letter published in Novaia Zhizn, a
  Menshevik paper, showing their disapproval, they
  felt that the uprising was too risky and believed
  that the the mass of the soldiers would not
  support them
• Kamenev was against Lenins April Theses when
  Lenin first announced it, as he felt it was non
  Marxist. Both Kamenev and Zinoviev wanted a
  socialist coalition instead of a one party rule
• Both joined with Stalin to form the Triumvirate
  in 1922 in order to take down Trotsky, who they
  all believed to be their biggest rival.
• Kort argues that Zinoviev and Kamenev disliked
  Trotsky as he had replaced Zinoviev as Lenins
  right-hand man.

10
Bukharin

• Lenin describes him in his Testament as being
  rightly considered the favourite of the whole
  party
• Philips argues that he was politically
  short-sighted, as he moved from being against
  the Brest-Litovsk Treaty to being pro NEP.
• Haynes argues that Bukharin had gradually become
  more hostile within the Party, as he was gullible
  and easily believed rumours and gossip and was
  therefore often incorrect in his assumptions.
• After Stalin left the Triumvirate, Bukharin and
  Stalin collaborated together to get rid of the
  United Opposition which formed in 1926
• Bukharin said, Stalin changes his theories
  according to whom he need to get rid of next.
• Service argues that Stalin later described him as
  being worse than a swine.

11
IdeologyHow important were policy issues in
Stalins rise to power? (2007)

• Deutscher states that Permanent Revolution
  sounded like an ominous warning to a tired
  generation
• Trotsky was immediately against this, he felt
  that if Communism stayed within one country it
  would collapse and die. Trotsky accused the
  proposal of being un-Marxist.
• Zinoviev and Kamenev who accused him of
  Factionalism which was illegal.
• Trotsky was opposed to the New Economic Policy
  (NEP) as he felt it was an unacceptable
  compromise to true Socialism. He proposed
  Permanent Revolution. This is where communism
  spreads from country to country, capitalist
  governments fall like dominoes and the worlds
  proletariat live as equals.
• Stalin introduced an alternative Socialism in
  One Country.

12
Was Lenin to blame?

• Conquest argues that Stalin seized every
  opportunity he was given and was therefore able
  to outwit his greatest rival Trotsky.
• It could be argued that Lenins Testament had
  left the question of who would be the next leader
  open. Perhaps even Lenin could be criticised for
  not making a definite decision about his
  successor and therefore making it possible for
  Stalin to seize power.
• In 1926, Krupskaya mentioned to a group of left
  communists that If Lenin were still alive,he
  Stalin would probably already be in jail
• Lenins secret testament had showed that Lenin
  had not trusted Stalin in his post as General
  Secretary, as it held too much power and he had
  urged his comrades to think about a way of
  removing Stalin from that post and appointing
  another man.
• However, Krupskaya had been discouraged from
  making the secret testament known to the Central
  Committee, as Zinoviev and Kamenev, fearing that
  the testament would lose support for them and
  believing that Stalin was not a real threat,
  urged that it did not become general knowledge.
• Therefore, it could be argued that although
  Lenin perhaps should have been clearer on his
  original testament about the threats of Stalin,
  it was the other Bolsheviks underestimation of
  Stalin that could be said to have led to his rise
  in power.

13
Historical Arguments about Ideology and Stalins
Policies

• Deutscher argues that Stalin supported the right
  policies at the right time unlike his opponents.
  The policy of Socialism in one country, which he
  advocated, appealed to the majority of the party.
• Carr argues that the policy appealed to the
  Russian people, as it made Socialism achievable
  and it made it seem that Stalin was the man who
  would achieve this for them. It also inspired
  patriotism and gave Russia a historical role in
  being the first Socialist state.
• Meanwhile, Stalins opponents advocated polices
  that were unpopular.
• Bukharins pro-NEP stance was realistic and was
  backed by big players, such as Rykov, the head of
  the Vesenkha, and Tomsky, the head of the Trade
  Unions, but he never got the support of the
  majority of the party delegates, as his policy
  was perceived to be like a capitalist system.
• Moreover, it could be argued that it was Stalins
  political cunning that made him a suitable
  candidate to take up the mantle of Leninism, as
  he had never clashed with Lenin, unlike the other
  contenders.