Free Sample Essays > European History
Were Stalin’s methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation?
I believe that Stalin’s methods at the time were the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation. In this essay I will cover the following points to back up my argument: Russia’s industrial state at the end of Lenin’s era in 1924, Stalin’s rise and consolidation of power, Stalin’s methods and policies on industrialization, collectivisation and form of a totalitarian state, victory against the Nazi’s and becoming the world superpower.
At the end of 1924 Russia was in a very awkward position, due to being the only country that was ruled by a communist government. Lenin intended to transform the Russian economy by wiping out all exploitation of man by man. Here was the problem that faced the new leader of the regime. In 1921 as a result of the chaos caused by the Decree on land and War Communism policies Lenin introduced a new policy. The basic strategy was now to restore the economy a degree of capitalism and private enterprise. Introducing his New Economic Policy (NEP), Lenin argued that the road to socialism would be longer then originally thought. In the NEP Lenin left an intermediate strategy which contained a long-term problem. Should the mixed economy be retained indefinitely, as Bhukarin argued, or should socialism be accelerated – a course urged by Trotsky. So any leader that was taking over power from Lenin would be faced with a problem. As we come to find out Stalin handled this superbly in the end and in my view he was the only man that could have taken the country forward.
Stalin was probably an outsider to take over the Bolshevik party after Lenin’s death in Jan 1924. He was totally eclipsed by Trotsky in the October revolution and never succeeded in winning the confidence and the friendship of Lenin. He was widely regarded as a plodder. However beneath Stalin’s grey exterior, was a singularly ruthless and opportunist character. While posing as a moderate he waited for the opportunity to attack other candidates, like a crocodile patiently waiting for its prey to make a mistake, then pounce. The fact that unlike other candidates Stalin was not Western educated, put him above Trotsky in people’s estimations. “He was a very skilful politician who had a superb grasp for tactics, could predict behaviour extremely well and had an unerring eye for personal weaknesses” quoted by a well-known historian McCauley. In particular he was able to capitalise on Bhukarin’s inability to convert his plausible economic theory into a credible programme, on Kamenev’s lack of vision and on Zinoviev’s organisational weakness. Stalin, by contrast showed consistent skill in grouping around him, his own sets of allies – men like Kalinin, Kuibyshev, Molotov and Voroshilov. It is clear that like other Bolshevik leaders, Stalin’s ultimate aim was collectivisation of the land and industrialisation. He was prepared to do anything to achieve everything. Of course we cannot tell how Lenin, had he lived, or how Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Bhukarin, would have [next page]