Lenin warned the people about the ambitious leaders like Joseph Stalin whom he met through the Bolshevik party. Lenin died before he could accomplish his task of organizing Russia. (Vladimir Lenin) Joseph Stalin, who had been elected to a very powerful position of general secretary, was in the running to be the next
Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
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
Zinoviev was seen by the party as ‘the most despicable individual since Mussolini.’ He was considered vain and arrogant with very limited political success, so he was unable to challenge Stalin’s authority alone. Kamenev was viewed as an unambitious person and never made an effort to become leader of the Soviet Union, this really limited his chances of becoming leader. Bukharin was seen as an able competitor, honest and incorruptible. However his appeal was damaged by his open disagreements with Lenin, also he did not openly go against Stalin which led him to be manipulated by Stalin. Overall Stalin
How far does Stalin’s position as General Secretary explain his success in defeating his rivals in the years 1924-29? Following Lenin’s death in 1924, the Communist Leadership in Russia was thrown into disarray. Months of ideological confusion, full of proposals of ideas for the future of socialism, bought about potential contenders for party leadership and amongst these was Joseph Stalin. Throughout the next 5 years, a great power struggle occurred between the contenders but Stalin eventually emerged successful as the new leader of the USSR. It was Stalin’s position as General Secretary and other factors that that contributed to his success.
In many ways, Stalin transformed himself to replicate Lenin by adopting his ideas and goals, although the way in which he met these goals are highly controversial by historians. Stalin was quickly acknowledged as a murderous dictator while he used a tactic of systematic killing of political opponents and innocent civilians on a massive scale. The objectives that Stalin was able to accomplish during his political career were truly outstanding and beneficial, however; the way in which he met these goals was truly unethical. Joseph Stalin was an
Some were extremely successful, and others not so much. People like Qin Shi Huangdi folded under the pressure, and became too paranoid of his own people. Octavian on the other hand, knew the possibilities of internal and external threat, but actually made successful reforms to eliminate the possibility. A lot of the success rate of these empires
“Assess the reasons why Stalin was able to rise to power between 1924 and 1929” In 1924, just two years after the end of the Russian Civil War, Lenin died. Since he had left no writings of who he wanted to be his successor, a power struggle emerged between the left and the right wings of the Bolshevik Party. Some of the key figures included Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin and Grigory Zinoviev. Nevertheless, Stalin was able to outmanoeuvre his way past all of these men to become undisputed leader of the USSR by 1929. The main reason that Stalin was able to rise to power was his ingenious defeats of both the left and right wings of the Party.
There were many factors in the survival of Tsarist rule from 1881 – 1905. The divisions among it's opponents played a part, as it meant that Tsarist opposition had no common goals, and couldn't work together to achieve it. The October Manifesto is another factor, it split up Nicholas' opposition even further by dividing the Liberals into two groups. Pobedonostsev & his repressive policies played a large part in the Survival of Tsarist autocracy, as he was able to keep the people down, not giving them enough ground to start a successful revolution. Lastly, Russia's backward society is one of the main reasons Nicholas II survived after 1905.
What in your view was the short term significance of Trotsky in the period 1917-1927? Trotsky played a key role in the Bolshevik party, encouraging revolution which saw the Bolsheviks gain power in 1917. He built up a strong Red Army during the civil war, which was used to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik government. He was seen by many as the second man to Lenin and the most likely candidate to take over as leader after Lenin’s death which portrays his significance. However, evidence suggests that after Lenin’s death he lost his power considerably, eventually being banned from the Communist party.