Not only this but Stalin used Lenin’s Legacy when he once again falsely claimed he was there at the beginning of the original Russian Revolution, when he was actually in exile. There is a picture, taken from the Eighth Bolshevik Party Congress in 1919 in which Trotsky was absent and Stalin took the opportunity to sit himself at Lenin’s right hand side, gaining him credit and showing his subtle ways of propaganda. However, Stalin’s win couldn’t just be down to what Lenin had done previous to the power struggle. To achieve and successfully get away with all of the above he would have had to have great skill as a politician – which he did. He had the ability to control Lenin’s funeral and turn it into his own campaign,
How Far Has The Importance Of Trotsky In Creating Political Change In Russia Been Exaggerated? I believe that the importance of Trotsky has not been exaggerated; to the contrary, I believe it to be understated. This is due heavily to his role within the Bolshevik party, and its subsequent Stalinist interpretation. One of the key reasons for many doubting the significance of Trotsky’s role, is due to him only joining the Bolshevik party (arguably the most significant party in creating political change), in 1917. Until that point, he had been a Menshevik, and although both parties were socialist, they differed largely in their views of how power should be achieved.
A position, thrust upon him by committee, and meant he was in control of the ‘party machine’ and therefore able to choose who was allowed into the Bolsheviks ranks, thus ensuring he has political backing and therefore could always ‘deliver the votes,’ as people were aware of the privileges he had given them. However, both sources have some similarities towards Stalin. They both make reference to Stalin’s inability to trust others and his intensity. However, Source A suggests that these are unsuitable qualities for someone in the position of general secretary, whereas source B makes them seem as though these are qualities to be admired, as Stalin once stated ‘a reasonable amount of distrust is a good basis for working together.’ This suggests that Stalin thought that you can never be too trusting, which as evidently shown through the power struggle and his rise to the top, where he manipulated the
History Why were Stalin’s opponents unable to prevent him from becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929? There are several reasons why Stalin’s opponents were unable to prevent him form becoming the leader of the USSR by 1929; the personality’s of the opponents being a hinting factor for themselves, Stalin’s cunning and sly ways to get what he wanted in the party, and Lenin’s testament not being publicly read out. Trotsky was Stalin’s main opponent for the next leader after Lenin’s death. Trotsky was a brilliant orator and administrator: he more than anyone had won the civil war being the leader of the Red Army. He was a good friend of Lenin’s, ending with a shining account of him in Lenin’s testament.
In 1924 Lenin dies leaving the role as leader of the communist open. Lenin did not want Stalin, but Trotsky to take over his position. But as Lenin’s strokes got worse, he lost the ability to participate in the CC (Central Committee). Lenin had information about Stalin that could have been very damaging if it was released in public. Stalin had many calculated methods to achieve the power of Russia.
Their argument is that Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who was the main planner and architect behind the purges. The structuralist school on the other hand believe that the situation was a consequence of Bolshevik theory. This school includs historians such as J. Arch. Getty and argues that Stalinâ€™s personality is not sufficient to explain the scale and form of the purges. One key piece of evidence in favour of this is the Pravda article â€œdizzy with successâ€ which suggests that the purges spiralled out of Stalinâ€™s control.
Lenin was a dedicated revolutionary and a powerful leader of the Bolsheviks.He had been carefully preparing the ground for revolution since 1903 and despite his absence from Russia he still managed to keep a firm hold on the Bolsheviks. While Lenin was the main influence behind the Bolsheviks strategies it was Trotsky who organised the rising and so they were able to seize their opportunity and take power. The Bolsheviks managed to take control with little force from the Military Revolutionary Committee as there was weak resistance from the Petrograd Garrison. As well as this there were the many weaknesses of the Provisional Government such as their decision to carry on the war and failure to address the land issue and there was hardly any opposition from the other parties. Lenin had been making plans for the Bolsheviks since 1902, he wrote a pamphlet "What is to be done?"
Lenin’s contribution to the Bolshevik Party was an essential factor in their consolidation of power during 1917-1924, however; Lenin’s role was not the only factor contributing to their success. The Bolsheviks were regarded as a “minor feature of Russian political life” and it was not until Lenin’s return to Russia that the party became a key player. It can be seen that Lenin played a pivotal role in the consolidation of power due to his background which allowed Lenin to be influenced by a revolutionary upbringing. Through his upbringing, Lenin was able to develop a strong leadership, political insight and determination allowing the Bolsheviks to be lead into power. Whilst the Bolsheviks were in power, Lenin’s role in dealing with uprisings and anti-communist groups was significant as it allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
During Lenin’s reign as leader of the party, Stalin was seen as a ‘grey blur’ in the background of political proceedings. This was not the same for his colleagues; Tomsky, Bukharin and Rykov were adamantly right wing whereas Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were all extremely left wing. Stalin, however, appeared to little to no opinions on these factions. Throughout the next five years, he would use this trait to his advantage, seeking to join one side of the arguments in order to rid himself of some of his rivals, then repeat the process until only he was left standing. This particular political skill would become one of the key factors in his rise to power.
By October 1905 the most united opposition in Romanov history faced the Tsar. Concession was unavoidable, but by giving ground the government intended to divide the opposition forces, which confronted it. As well as this other factors helped to contribute to the survival of Tsarism. These include the army and elite staying loyal to Tsar Nicholas II and the nature of the revolution, One of the main attributes one could argue to the survival of Nicholas the second is the unorganised nature of the opposition to the tsar. This is shown by one main foe to the tsar the social democrats being split between the Bolsheviks led by the Lenin and the Mensheviks.