To move towards a socialist society: • According to Marxist theory, socialism could only be created in a society where the majority of the population were workers – but in 1928, only 20% were workers in the USSR. To establish his credentials: • Stalin wanted to prove himself was the worthy succession of Lenin. • He wanted to make the leading Bolsheviks believe the he was Lenin’s equal. • He believed he could do this through his economic plan – he believed that by taking the USSR towards socialism would prove this. To improve standards of living: • Stalin knew the USSR had a bad standard of living was poor compared to the West, and wanted to catch up with them.
Such as in source 8 which claims the USA wanted a war with the USSR to help its economy, emphasising the impact of the Military Industrial Complex on aggressive foreign policy which played a huge role in the development of the Cold War. Furthermore it can be argued that it was the misunderstanding and confusion between the two nations which owed more to the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-8.
On the other hand, it can be argued that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War was just as, or even more important in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, as was the image of the Bolsheviks as being patriotic heroes fighting against Tsarist leaders and foreign invaders. Obviously, it was the October Revolution which brought the Bolshevik Party into power, giving them control of Russia. It can therefore be said that, had this not occurred, then it is incredibly unlikely that the Bolsheviks would ever have come into power. The Revolution was, of course, Lenin’s major goal (though in the end it was organised by Trotsky) for his party, and it was through his leadership and staunch dedication to the fall of the Provisional Government that the Bolsheviks eventually seized power in October 1917. Had it not been for Lenin, the Bolsheviks would never have taken power in the first place, as free elections were to be held in November 1917, with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs) being the most popular at the time.
This was an economic concession that Lenin was forced to make due to the deteriorating economic conditions and the real threat of a revolt against the Bolshevik government. It was always intended as a temporary measure, and the question after Lenin’s death wasn’t whether it should continue or not, but how it should be put an end to. The debate lay between the left-wing, lead by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who advocated a quick movement into rapid industrialisation, which would mean abandoning the New Economic Policy, militarising the labour forces and exploiting peasants for grain to fund the industrialisation; and the right-wing, led by Bukharin, who wanted to continue the New Economic Policy for another 20 years, which would mean peasants would grow wealthier and be encouraged to buy consumer goods, which in turn would lead to more products being made in factories and a gradual process of industrialisation. This became a passionate issue because economic policy was also at the heart of the debate of what a socialist society should look like. The growth of a rich super class led to activities such as property dealing, land speculation, gambling and prostitution, all of which conflicted greatly with the ideology of Communism.
'How far were the divisions over the continuation of the New Economic Policy responsible for the outcome of the power struggle in the years 1924-1929? ‘ The New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in 1921 by Bukharin and Lenin, primarily due to Russia’s urgent need for food, which offered the peasantry a partial response to small-scale capitalism and a free market economy. The aim of this was to win over the poor peasantry to the side of the proletarian dictatorship. The NEP divided the CPSU, as many believed that it was “anti-communist”, as it allowed a capitalist structure under a communist party. In order to prevent the NEP tearing his Bolshevik party apart, however, Lenin introduced a “ban on factionalism”, and this stifled criticism of the NEP.
During the beginning of the 1900s, there were plenty of revolutions and violence that took place. The Chinese revolution in 1911 and Russian Revolution in 1917 shared similar goals, they wanted to end the power of their current leader and establish a new one. For Russia, it was Tsar Nicholas II and for China it was the Qing Dynasty, Russia wanting a functioning communist government and Chinese revolutionaries wanted a democratic government. The first outcome is different in that China relied on agriculture to maintain its economy and Russia relied on industry to fuel its economy. The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries.
Is it reasonable to blame the breakdown of East-West relations that ultimately led to the cold war, on one or two men, is this rational, but even so, what roles did Stalin and Truman play and where can the blame of this breakdown of alliance and international relations be placed on. Many can argue that in one sense the origins of this breakdown of trust can be traced back to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution which set up the Soviet system - an alternative model of political, economic and social organization which proclaimed itself an enemy of and more significantly, the successor of the capitalist system. Communism was initially viewed by capitalist governments with great suspicion and during the civil war in Russia 1918 several capitalist states aided anti-communist forces and even though they were unsuccessful Stalin was still weary of these capitalist states and believed they still hoped to destroy the USSR. (Lowe, 2008) In many ways Stalin’s paranoia had stemmed from the actions of these capitalist states and it was this paranoia that clouded his senses and led him to make decisions that made Western governments wary of Stalin and the USSR. Roosevelt was keen to encourage closer ties with the USSR and although many Americans were skeptical, Roosevelt worked hard to keep the peace between America and the USSR.
I disagree with the statement “ Increased militarism was the main cause of the second world war.” Due to the fact that it was one of the many reasons why the second world war started. I think that Appeasement was the main cause of the start of the second world war. Firstly , Britain and France followed the policy of appeasement. Appeasement was by chamberlain to satisfy Hitler’s demands. This gave Hitler confidence that Britain and France would not stop him when he invaded other countries.
Ideological concern shaped the development of Cold War because the two Superpowers’ ideology was the total opposite sides of the coins. Each of their policies such as economic and domestic policies contradicts each other, added with the bipolar assumption and zero-sum perception of the world; it seemed to them that it would be impossible for the two superpowers to coexist together. USA had a misperception about USSR that they practice the monolithic expansionistic ideology, thus stating that every country that were to turn or had a communist revolution must have started off by the incentive of the USSR. One very famous and obvious example is the Greece Crisis, where USSR was not involved at all but was accused to giving aid to the communists in Greece. Another distinct event where their difference in ideology was clearly shown was during the Yalta Conference where the party declined strictly to have their say accepted about the liberal of the Eastern Europe.
v v Yalta conference agreements resulted in Germany being divided into zones of occupation and Berlin was to have a western zone. Western Germany and Berlin was set up on capitalist ideals whereas Easy Germany and Berlin was set up on communist principles. No, it was not a result of the Second World War: v v v v v Tension had begun during the Russian Civil War 1918-21 and for years the USA did not recognize the USSR. Different ideologies. Zinoviev’s Letter Munich agreement September 1938 Appeasement policy Conclusion v Regardless of the war, a Cold War scenario was inevitable due to Political, economic and ideological differences.