Stalin/Alexander Iii Was More Successful at Dealing with Opposition Than Any Other Ruler of Russia in the Period from 1855-1964. How Far Do You Agree with This View?

In: Historical Events

Submitted By cfensome7
Words 1137
Pages 5
Opposition is a constant theme faced by any political ruler. A common measure of success is how effective a ruler is at dealing with the problem of opposition, in comparison to his previous/succeeding rulers, in this instance, comparing Stalin to the Tsars Alexander II,III and Nicholas II, and Communist Leaders Lenin and Khrushchev, over a decade of Russian history.
Under Stalin, the campaign to crush opposition began almost instantaneously. Initially, this came in the form of political opponents such as Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev and the left. Beginning with Trotsky, Stalin seized opportunity and dominated the 12th Party Conference in 1923, after Trotsky failed to capitalise on the chance to make the principal speech, which would arguably have enabled him to emerge as the next leader of Russia. Fraught with half truths and lies was Stalin’s speech, which diminished the position of Trotsky and subsequently enhanced his own profile. A fathom of mistakes from Trotsky would follow, including accusations of factionalism, absence in various Central Committee meetings and missing Lenin’s funeral, all provided Stalin to emerge as the loyal discipline of Lenin. Subsequently, a vicious campaign from Zinoviev and Kamanev was launched against Trotsky, questioning his loyalty and raising the issue of his opposition towards Lenin prior to 1917. In response, Trotsky published ‘The Lessons of October’ in which he attacked Zinoviev and Kamanev, branding them as the instigators, belittling any responsibility from Stalin, which in hindsight was a huge mistake. Stalin merely sat back and watched the political left tear themselves apart, whilst subtly consolidation power by bringing more of his supporters to key positions in party organisation. Trotsky was further condemned by the Central Committee in January 1925, which was arguably the tipping point and led to his resignation from…...

Similar Documents

How Far Do You Agree with the View That Stalin’s Foreign Policy Was a Major Contributing Factor to the Emergence of the Cold War in the Period 1945-50?

...How far do you agree with the view that Stalin’s foreign policy was a major contributing factor to the emergence of the Cold War in the period 1945-50? Throughout the period 1945-50 there were a number of factors that caused the emergence of the cold war. One of these was Stalin and his aggressive foreign policy; another key factor to be considered is the American paranoia and resultant aggression at the time. Which of these factors was more significant is debatable but it is undeniable that soviet foreign policy was a major contributor to the outbreak of the Cold War. One of the key elements that led to the cold war was Stalin's expansionist foreign policy, with ideas “to dominate the continent as Hitler had sought to do so”. This view from American historian Gaddis shows the view of many Americans during the period; it highlights just how threatened the USA felt and demonstrates how pivotal Stalin's expansionist views were in the outbreak of war, his zeal and resolve to control the continent conjured fear in the Americans and source T shows that Stalin would use any means necessary. Such actions so as to cease control in Europe would not go without reaction from America and actions such as the communist coup d’état in Czechoslovakia would not go unnoticed. They were met with resistance; both the Marshall plan and Truman doctrine were arguably the response to soviet aggression. The Marshall plan aimed to prevent the further spread of communism particularly into Western......

Words: 852 - Pages: 4

.How Far Do You Agree with the View That the Development of the Cold War in the Period 1945-50 Was the Result of Stalin’s Foreign Policy?

....How far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold War in the period 1945-50 was the result of Stalin’s foreign policy? Development of the Cold War, in the five years between 1945 and 1950, could be argued as taking place for a number of reasons and due to various individuals. It could be easy to simply site Stalin as the main reason responsible for it’s outbreak and growth, clear through his approach on communist expansion, use of Red Army and inability to uphold agreements. However for a war of any kind to develop there is always more than one party involved and the USA and it’s president Truman could also be said to have contributed to the developing of Cold War, arguably being equally aggressive as Stalin – taking an Iron fist on dealings with Russia through policies such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, as well as his direction over the US involvement in the Korean War. However issues such as Britain and Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, as well as the birth of McCarthyism in America, can also be seen as hindering relations between the two superpowers of the Cold War and therefore playing a role in it’s development. Whether Stalin was to blame for the Cold War can also be judged and evaluated through the use of sources, offering a number of interpretations, from extreme Orthodox and Revisionist views to the more diplomatic reasonings of the post revisionist stance. It is correct to say that development of the Cold War, between 1945 and......

Words: 3160 - Pages: 13

Stalin the Red Tsar. How Far Do You Agree with This Judgement?

...Stalin the Red Tsar. How far do you agree with this judgement? Stalin, upon his rise to power in 1929, assured the Russian peoples that he was a dedicated follower of Leninism; often saying that “Lenin is always with us” indicating that he wished to show how similar to Lenin he was going to be in his leadership. Despite this claim, in actual fact there were a number of distinctly Tsarist elements to his leadership. A Tsar is a leader who rules without parliaments in an absolute autocracy, often being resistant to any reforms; maintaining the feudal, peasant-based illiterate society. Furthermore, they were often intrinsically bound with the Russian Orthodox Church as well as being distinctively imperialistic and chauvinistic. To a large degree, Stalin fitted this model, perhaps most notably due to his “top-down” approach to leadership, thus leading to the idea that he was a “Red Tsar”. He did not fit the model fully, though, especially when it came to being anti-reform, where in fact Stalin was all for reform (though not always for the better) and believed in modernising the USSR and, despite his anti-Western stance, was a Westerniser and not a Slavophile. He was also not imperialistic like the Tsarist leaders had been, and knew that people would react badly to Russian cultural imperialism. The belief that Stalin was a Red Tsar perhaps also came from his self-portrayal as a ‘God-like’ figure, and his employment of very traditional tactics of fear and propaganda in his......

Words: 1613 - Pages: 7

How Far Do You Agree That Stalin’s Position as General Secretary Was the Main Factor in His Emergence as Leader of Russia?

...How far do you agree that Stalin’s position as General Secretary was the main factor in his emergence as leader of Russia? After Lenin’s death in 1924, the Communist leadership of Russia was thrown into disarray. There were many different ideas for the future of the country, the strongest of which was socialism, which caused many various contenders for the party to emerge. There was a struggle of power between these contenders, but Stalin eventually emerged as the successful new leader of the USSR. Stalin’s position as General Secretary was the main factor in this emergence as leader. Stalin’s position of General Secretary allowed him to use and abuse Lenin’s systems to get to the top. Stalin had the power to control what was discussed and how politburo decisions were carried out, and he also had the significant influence of patronage. This allowed him to access most of the Communist party, his power of patronage allowed him to use his authority to place his most reliable supporters in key positions within the party. As a result, there people were extremely loyal to Stalin as they owed their place to him, and therefore he could count on their support. These people became known as his delegates as they could also be known to vote in Stalin’s favour. Stalin also had other key positions in the party, which allowed him to outmanoeuvre his rivals through a series of alliances. He was head of the Sovnarkom, which allowed him to expel any party members who disagreed with his......

Words: 1111 - Pages: 5

Russia

...A2 Russia and its Rulers 1855–1964 Past Questions workbook How to use this booklet Your Russia and Cold War teachers will discuss what they want you to do in each Cold War lesson (now that your coursework is finished). This booklet has a page for each examination question that has been asked about our course since the change of course in 2010. For each question there is a section from the guidance given to examiners for marking it, and a section from the examiner’s report on each question. Each page also contains a section where you can record what you have learned about answering each question. Tackling past questions is an excellent way of revising. You could be doing several things in any order: * Reading the examiner’s remarks; * Planning an answer to the question; * Using your notes to find the evidence you’ll need to answer each question; * Sending a plan to a friend for constructive criticism. Before you get going – please note the advice that the Chief Examiner has given to his exam markers for the last year: ------------------------------------------------- “Candidates are expected to demonstrate understanding of the issues in each of their selected questions over a period of at least a hundred years (unless an individual question specifies a slightly shorter period.) Candidates are reminded of the synoptic nature of the Unit. Answers are required to demonstrate understanding of the processes of historical continuity,......

Words: 10577 - Pages: 43

The Role of Individuals in Russia Between 1855-1964

...How significant was the role of individuals in the making of modern Russia 1856-1964 The influence of individuals in the making of modern Russia fluctuated recurrently in the years 1856-1964. T, this was mainly due to the instability of the government and the consequent constraints aswell as outside pressures that were placed on the leaders. Despite this, certain individuals were able to exert a greater influence than others. However, the circumstances in which the indivudals acted and the poltical structure which allowed for it influenced the making of modern Russia, more than the individual. Individuals had an short term and long term impacts. Lenin is an example of an individual who had both. Because he was an undisputed Leader he was in aprime position to make significant changes. One such change would be the introduction of NEP. He believed that “economically and politically speaking the New Economic Policy completely ensures to us the possibility of building the foundation of a socialist economy.” NEP was unpopular within the Bolshevik party and so the fact that Lenin went through with it, shows his impact as an individual. Similarly ,before Lenin, Witte had been significant by reforming the economic policies of the Tsars by improving the Russian currency aswell as making the Russian market for accessible for foreign enterprises. This had long term significance as investments were more likely to come to Russia and thereby strengthen the Russian economy. All Tsars...

Words: 2316 - Pages: 10

How Far Do You Agree with the View That the Development of the Cold War in the Period 1945-50 Was the Result of Stalin’s Foreign Policy?

...taking place for a number of reasons and due to various individuals. It could be easy to simply site Stalin as the main reason responsible for it’s outbreak and growth, clear through his approach on communist expansion, use of Red Army and inability to uphold agreements. However for a war of any kind to develop there is always more than one party involved and the USA and it’s president Truman could also be said to have contributed to the developing of Cold War, arguably being equally aggressive as Stalin – taking an Iron fist on dealings with Russia through policies such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, as well as his direction over the US involvement in the Korean War. However issues such as Britain and Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, as well as the birth of McCarthyism in America, can also be seen as hindering relations between the two superpowers of the Cold War and therefore playing a role in it’s development. Whether Stalin was to blame for the Cold War can also be judged and evaluated through the use of sources, offering a number of interpretations, from extreme Orthodox and Revisionist views to the more diplomatic reasonings of the post revisionist stance. It is correct to say that development of the Cold War, between 1945 and 50, was definitely impacted and heightened through provocative, and at times, aggressive actions on foreign policy, taken by Stalin. An example of Stalin’s confrontational actions, in terms of foreign policy, is his part in the......

Words: 3132 - Pages: 13

Economic Success Was the Most Important Reason for Conservative Electoral Dominance in the Period from 1951 to 1964.’ How Far Do You Agree?

...In 1951 Churchill was voted in with a 17 seat majority which what can only be described as an ‘Indian Summer.’ Future elections would increase this majority to 100 seats by 1959. A contributing factor to the dominance of the Conservatives was the unelectable Labour, yet the Conservatives did have a strong leadership in their own right. Another important factor in the Conservative dominance was the domestic policy of housing, however, this would not have been possible without the introduction of the economic policy of credit. Therefore, it was the economic policies under the Conservatives, which were the most important reason for their dominance. The introduction of credit was an intricate part of their dominance, allowing money to be borrowed on ‘easy-terms,’ designed to stimulate a sluggish economy, its success can be shown through the sale of cars, which quadrupled from 1.5 million to 5.5 million. This won votes with the electorate since it supported Churchill’s initial claim when the Conservatives came into power that they would put the welfare of the people at the centre of their policies. It also continued the social mobility that had occurred since the war, closing the gap between the ‘haves and the haves not,’ as Butler suggested. However, it could be argued that the Conservative’s economic policies were not as successful as they appeared and were not the basis for Conservative dominance, since the British economy was sluggish with only a GDP of 2.3% in comparison......

Words: 878 - Pages: 4

‘Russia Was a Backwards Country with Little Hope of Moderating Herself’ How Far Do You Agree?

...‘Russia was a backwards country with little hope of moderating herself’ How far do you agree? Throughout time many historians have stated that Russia (prior to its revolution) was a ‘backwards’ country and that it had little chance of developing in order to keep up with the modernized world we live in today. However, by arguing for or against this, one must first take into consideration Russia’s social views, economy, geography and political tactics at this point in time. Russia’s take on politics was different to some of the other powerful countries at this time. They had not yet brought in any form of democracy, however, with the country being 80% peasants, it was not yet possible. As the majority of the country are people who are being treated badly by their ruler, there was no way they would vote for the Tsar and therefore the country had to continue as they were, in an autocratic state. This was one of they key factors which labeled them as ‘backwards’, the country was ran in a way that was considered outdated and un-modern. The country’s education system was another factor that was continuously preventing them from moving forward into the modern day world. With 90% of the country being illiterate, there was no way for the country to industrialize (which would also go on to effect their economy), without people being able to read or write, it became even more difficult for the country to move forward. The economy became weak very quickly because of the growth in...

Words: 721 - Pages: 3

‘the Labour Governments of 1964-1970 Were More Successful Than the Labour Governments of 1974-1979.’ How Far Do You Agree?

...Labour governments of 1964-1970 were more successful than the Labour governments of 1974-1979.’ How far do you agree? Both of the Labour Governments had some great successes, for instance, the 1964-1970 Labour government won the 1966 election with a majority of 100 seats. The Labour government of 1974-1979 did not win the election with a majority but managed to reduce inflation in 1978 from 15% to 8% which was a very large success as inflation had been a problem for a long time. Just from looking at the two governments you assume that the 1964-1970 labour government was more successful than the 1974-1979 labour government because they were in power for longer, and they won with a much larger majority of seats in the elections. However both of the governments have successes and failures that aren’t clearly visible just from the majorities and time spent in office. The Labour Government of 1964-1970 was run by Harold Wilson. Harold Wilson was voted in on the promise of Central Planning and his speech ‘The white heat of technology. Wilson’s government was seen as fresh and young, and Wilson made the public believe he was just another old politician like the rest and that he was more like the working class public. His main objective was to get the country moving economically which was a big decider for a lot of people when it came to who they would vote for. Central Planning is when the government overcome market failure by deciding what the country produces, how the country......

Words: 1291 - Pages: 6

‘the Reichstag Fire Was More Important Than the Night of the Long Knives for Hitler’ How Far Do You Agree with This Statement? Explain Your Answer.

...‘The Reichstag fire was more important than the Night of the Long Knives for Hitler’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.  (10)  Both the Reichstag Fire and the Knight of the Long Knives were of great importance to Hitler in hi journey towards his consolidation of power. Whereas one can be seen as the straw on the camels back to Hitler's consolidation, the other can be seen as the framework towards the final triumph. The Reichstag Fire was an important turning point in Hitler’s consolidation of power. This incident brought the Nazis many advantages and some disadvantages. When the police managed to enter the building they found a man named Marinus Van Der Lubbe, who was a Dutch communist. The fact that he was a communist enabled Hitler to use this against the communists and have 4,000 communist leaders imprisoned days before the elections. During this period of terror for Germany the police could do anything, more specifically the Nazi police. Hitler made the most out of this situation; he used the police to intimidate voters and to disrupt communist party meetings. The fact that a communist was found burning the Reichstag building made all of this possible for Hitler, although it has been argued that the Nazis might have started the fire and that Van Der Lubbe was framed for the crime. Shortly afterwards Van Der Lubbe was tried and executed. In addition, it allowed Hitler to persuade Hindenburg to pass the “Enabling Act”, which suspended......

Words: 940 - Pages: 4

Some Readers Have Commented That Mary Shelly Presents the Creature as More Human Than His Creator. How Far Do You Agree with This View?

...commented that Mary Shelly presents the creature as more human than his creator. How far do you agree with this view? To some extent I agree with this statement, but there is also a point of disagreement. Shelly introduces the creature into the novel with physical human characteristics, who soon begins to learn the human language and feel human emotions and senses such as love, kindness, pain and anger. The creature takes complete responsibility for his actions, respects life more than Frankenstein, which is apparent by Frankenstein robbing graves to create the creature, and the fact that Frankenstein abandons the creature to die, only for the creature to experience the hatred of mankind. In almost every way, the monster portrays himself as more human than Frankenstein, but of course, one must not put aside the fact that ultimately, Frankenstein is a human and the creature is not. Of course, for the creature to be more human than his creator, he must first have the typical human characteristics. He firstly shows physical human features. He is “eight feet in height” and his body parts are taken from dead bodies which his creator dug out from graves. His “limbs were in proportion” and his “hair was of lustrous black. He has also developed human emotions. Having been scared off by the villagers he began “feeling pain invade [him] on all sides, [he] sat down and wept”. This shows that his surroundings have an impact on how he feels and reacts, and to weep is a common human......

Words: 1521 - Pages: 7

How Far Do You Agree That the Lives of Peasants Changed to a Large Extent from 1855 to 1964?

...Arguably peasants working conditions did change however to a limited extent from 1855 to 1964. This was due to government reforms during tsarist Russia that had significant effects on peasants such as Stolypin and Alexander’s reforms as this was first steps taken to improve peasantry. However their freedom, transportation and the right to own land was very limited, redemption payments were almost impossible and they were still bound to the Mir. Similar to the communist era under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev from 1917 peasant working conditions did change as Lenin introduced the new economic policy that improved peasant working conditions financially, but war communism did not benefit the peasants at all, agriculture was very low and caused a huge feminine what effected work life. When Stalin came to power 1924 there was huge transformation in peasant working conditions due to the industrialisation of Russia where machinery and agriculture increased however peasants were practically treated as slave labour during the five-year plans. Khrushchev also changed peasant-working lives as peasants became freer after Stalin’s death, for example they were paid more for grain and the removal of the MTS in 1958 allowed farmers to buy their own machinery. Overall change was very limited in peasant working conditions until 1950’s as the majority of the population were no longer peasants, machinery and new methods of faming became advanced and those who were peasants, they started to get......

Words: 2058 - Pages: 9

How Far Do You Agree with the View That the Development of the Cold War in the Period 1945-50 Was the Result of Stalin’s Foreign Policy?

...How far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold War in the period 1945-50 was the result of Stalin’s foreign policy? Development of the Cold War, in the five years between 1945 and 1950, could be argued as taking place for a number of reasons and due to various individuals. It could be easy to simply site Stalin as the main reason responsible for it’s outbreak and growth, clear through his approach on communist expansion, use of Red Army and inability to uphold agreements. However for a war of any kind to develop there is always more than one party involved and the USA and it’s president Truman could also be said to have contributed to the developing of Cold War, arguably being equally aggressive as Stalin – taking an Iron fist on dealings with Russia through policies such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, as well as his direction over the US involvement in the Korean War. However issues such as Britain and Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, as well as the birth of McCarthyism in America, can also be seen as hindering relations between the two superpowers of the Cold War and therefore playing a role in it’s development. Whether Stalin was to blame for the Cold War can also be judged and evaluated through the use of sources, offering a number of interpretations, from extreme Orthodox and Revisionist views to the more diplomatic reasonings of the post revisionist stance. It is correct to say that development of the Cold War, between...

Words: 3196 - Pages: 13

How Far Do You Agree with the View That the Development of the Cold War in the Years 1945-48 Owed More to Soviet Expansionism Than to the Usa's Economic Interests?

...How far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-48 owed more to Soviet expansionism than to the USA’s economic interests? It is evident that, as Source 7 argues, the development if the Cold War in the years 1945-48 owed more to Soviet expansionism. However, it was not the main factor. The USA’s desire to boost their economy and influence in Eastern Europe, discussed in Source 8, and the need to secure the USSR’s boarders, the focus of Source 9, also l,aged s key role in the development of the Cold War. Perhaps one can argue that all three aims of both superpowers acted as catalysts and contributed to the development of the Cold War. In essence, Source 7 argues that the USSR had an “ambitious aim” of insuring Communist control in its sphere of influence. This is true in the sense that Stalin aimed to take advantage of the military situation in Europe and strengthen Soviet influence which resulted in occupying as much of Eastern Europe as possible. Following the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of 1945, Pro-Communist governments were set up in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. As well as this, the Soviet Union allowed Communist politicians to hold key positions in Coalition governments before elections were held meaning that elections could be manipulated to ensure communists controlled the levers of power. As a result of such measures, by the end of 1947 every state in Eastern Europe, except from Czechoslovakia, was......

Words: 1130 - Pages: 5