Preview

“Stalin Won Because Trotsky Lacked a Power Base”: How Far Does This Statement Explain Why Stalin, Rather Than Trotsky, Succeeded Lenin as Leader of the Soviet State?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2242 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
“Stalin Won Because Trotsky Lacked a Power Base”: How Far Does This Statement Explain Why Stalin, Rather Than Trotsky, Succeeded Lenin as Leader of the Soviet State?
“Stalin won because Trotsky lacked a power base”: How far does this statement explain why Stalin, rather than Trotsky, succeeded Lenin as leader of the Soviet State?

A power base is the source of a person’s organisation power or influence. The statement “Stalin won because Trotsky lacked a power base” does not explain the actual reasons as to why Trotsky did not succeed Lenin as the leader of the Soviet state. Trotsky had the most powerful power base in Russia at the time which was that he had control of the Red Army. Stalin on the other hand had control of the politburo which was still powerful but when it came down as to who was more powerful it was no doubt the power base of Trotsky. After Lenin’s death in 1924, there were 5 main possible candidates for the leader of the Bolshevik Party: these including Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. However, the two that were in contention for Lenin’s position were Trotsky and Stalin. There were many reasons why Stalin succeeded Trotsky to become the leader. Firstly, Stalin created the Triumvirate with Kamenev and Zinoviev. Secondly Stalin made sure that Lenin’s Testament was not published within the party. Lastly he was the main speaker in Lenin’s funeral where as Trotsky didn’t attend the funeral. However this is all what Stalin had done he, on the other hand Trotsky lacked leadership skills. The main reason why the party members disliked Trotsky was because Trotsky called them “Radishes”. Lenin's enrolment, the defeat of Trotsky and the defeat of the Left and Right, all contributed toward Stalin becoming leader of the USSR, it was not only Stalin's power base. When Lenin’s death occurred most would have thought it obvious that Trotsky would succeed him. He was behind the planning of the November Revolution, he led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, and he was Lenin’s good friend. Trotsky was the only party member who could rival Lenin as a speaker and writer. There were many reasons why

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The first reason is that Stalin, Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had different ideologies which contradicted each other, the rules and the practices that Lenin already had in place. Trotsky represented the left wing of the party and believed in the rejection of the New Economic Party, being committed to immediate industrialisation and permanent revolution which was completely different to Bukharin who was on the right wing of the party. Bukharin believed in acceptance of the NEP, he was committed to industrialisation but in the distant future and wanted socialism in one country. On the other hand, Stalin was in the centre which meant that he had a pragmatic commitment to the NEP, he was committed to industrialisation in the near future and socialism should be in one country, which are both similar to Bukharin’s ideas on the right wing. Zinoviev and Kamenev swapped from right to left in 1925, which lost them credibility with the party. The fact that most of the contenders had such different ideas about how to run the country would have caused a struggle because they would not have been able to agree on something between them and would have been competing…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The personalities of each individual contender played a role in establishing their position and reputation within the Party, which ultimately would strengthen or weaken their chances of becoming leader. Trotsky was a passionate member of the party and had the strongest Revolutionary record amongst all of his opponents. His leadership of the Red Army allowed the communists to seize power in the October Revolution, enhancing his reputation, despite being labeled a traitor when he sided with the Mensheviks in 1903. However, he was noted as ‘arrogant’ in Lenin’s testament and managed to gain many enemies within the party as he felt there was no need to endear himself to his colleagues and he therefore displayed little respect towards them. This made him very unpopular and a tyrant to compromise with as he believed in debate as a way of solving issues and adopted other western ideas, tainting his image. Similarly, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov allowed their unfavorable personalities to ruin their appeal within the party and all were criticised in Lenin’s testament, further diminishing their chances of success. Stalin also…

    • 1220 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trotsky however was the complete opposite to Stalin. He was popular, an orator and a talented theorist who stirred loyalty in his troops. His radical ideas made him well-liked with the young and idealistic members of the communist party. Lenin in his testament identified Trotsky as a “the most able in the present communist committee” he also remarked on Trotsky’s “too far reaching self-confidence”…

    • 1502 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Born into a world of change due Russian Industrial revolution, Trotsky was shaped by his historical context and early life. The Revolution took place in the late 19th century. Industrialization was occurring at a fast rate with export of grains and coal increasing, however the working class was still repressed. Trotsky was introduced to a place where change was prevalent, yet nothing had been done for the proletariat. This impacted on his views that became apparent in later life. Trotsky was introduced to Communism in 1897. Being an inexperienced political activist, he was caught and exiled to Siberia. Trotsky was aware of leading Marxist Russians residing in London, including Martov and Lenin, and he escaped to join them. Arriving in 1902, Trotsky established a strong relationship with Lenin, who appreciated his literary abilities. Lenin checked Trotsky’s writing, especially articles for the Communist newspaper ‘Iskra’. However, in the Party Congress of 1903, the Social democratic party split into the Lenin led Bolsheviks and Martov headed Mensheviks. Trotsky stood against Lenin, stating that his theories went against Marxist notion of freeing the working classes. Through the context of his times, and early life experiences, it can be discerned that events…

    • 969 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1922, when Vladimir Lenin died, someone needed to step up and the Soviet Union. As he was slowly dying, a power struggle emerged between Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. Even though Trotsky “had been widely viewed as the heir of Lenin, it was relatively easy for Stalin to combine with the other Bolshevik leaders in order to head off this threat” (Paley 10). In Lenin’s “Final Testament”, Lenin could already see that Stalin was quickly and surreptitiously gaining power. Stalin’s position of General Secretary gave him the ability to appoint people to important positions. Lenin was also reluctant to see Stalin as his successor because he thought that Trotsky could do a much better job. Lenin believed that Trotsky was the best man in the central…

    • 199 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    To what extent did Stalin’s rule mar the key turning point in Russia’s political development 1856-1953?…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another weakness of Stalin’s leadership, thus supporting the argument is that many of the most successful officers were purged under Stalin’s orders. This can mainly be attributed to Stalin’s paranoid personality; he was afraid of competition for leadership from the higher ranked officers and it was because of this he gave out the orders for them to be purged. This would support the argument that victory was in spite of Stalin as the Soviet government would have been much stronger had Stalin not ordered the officers to be purged. this is a particularly important factor contributing to the validity argument as it…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    A key factor that allowed Lenin and his party to dominate Russia was how the power was distributed throughout the government. The Bolsheviks created a system that took the form of a ‘pyramid of power’ this meant that the decisions and power sifted through all the political parties involved in the government finally leading up to the central committee; which was subjugated by the Bolsheviks. This meant that no matter what anyone else wanted if the Bolsheviks didn’t want to pass or agree with something, they didn’t have to; resulting in an extremely de facto government. The reason the Bolsheviks created this system how it was, is down to Lenin’s avid disbelief in democracy, Lenin favoured his ideal of democratic centralism, which invariable meant that he was in command and this ‘pyramid of power’ system suited Lenin’s desires. The fact that nobody else had such control of the government would have made it difficult for any change as they couldn’t get any alternative in the public domain as the Bolshevik system wouldn’t allow it, therefore any opposition that did exist wouldn’t be able to express their opinions and so the Bolsheviks were in a pretty secure position, thus able to survive the early days.…

    • 1312 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The different beliefs in the revolution, this was a big part in the struggle as they all had different beliefs on how Russia would revolt and go into a new stage for Russia. Trotsky had his belief, this was of world revolution. Meaning that Trotsky didn’t believe that Russia could have a revolution on its own, as no socialist society could survive on its own. He didn’t believe that Russia had the economic resources or technological sophistication to complete the transition to socialism on its own. This meant that Trotsky relied on Western Europe and that they would have a revolution, he believed that the communist regimes in western…

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Although Lenin’s death was relatively expected, there was still a lot of confusion over who would succeed him to lead the USSR. There are a number of reasons to why this occurred but there are still disputes about who Lenin wanted to succeed him and why he didn’t leave someone who he thought would be best for the job in charge of his beloved USSR.…

    • 813 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Trotsky was the reason as to how the Bolsheviks gained so much power as he insisted on using ex-tsarist officers to train and control the red army. He used strict discipline in order to help the army and this greatly supported the Bolsheviks and helped them win the civil war. Trotsky also was the reason as to how the civil war was won, because not only did he recruit trained army officers- which was extremely difficult to do due considering most supported the whites- but also because he organized food and weaponry (8) and forced the red army to attack the Kronstadt sailors across melting ice, ruthlessly stooping the result and putting an end to the civil war. In other words, he won the civil war virtually single handed. This was one of the main reasons as to how the Bolsheviks consolidated their power and without the training of the army commanded by Trotsky, they wouldn’t have had the chance to be noticed. Furthermore, without Trotsky’s harsh commands and the declaration of “war is the instrument of policy” the civil war would’ve carried on, destroying the Bolshevik party and everything they had worked…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The name “Leon Trotsky” still causes great debate; amongst sympathisers and condemners alike. However, his significant role in the establishment of the Bolshevik Communist Government and effective theoretical practices cannot be denied. According to Ronald Aaronson, both a critical and sympathetic interpreter of Trotsky, his influence meant that he “called upon the very force that destroyed him”, and that his strengths were inextricably linked to his weaknesses. In this quote, he is referring to the fact that Trotsky’s efforts in his power struggle with Stalin contributed to his death, and the deaths of many others. He is also saying that Trotsky’s political success was stifled by his own passion and intellect. In order to evaluate these ideas about Trotsky’s role in the Soviet Union, we must investigate the effect of his revolutionary practices, theoretical teachings, government work and how the views of alternative historians support or undermine Aaronson’s view.…

    • 1180 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Stalin - History

    • 885 Words
    • 4 Pages

    It was not just his popular policies that saw Stalin replace Lenin as the leader of the USSR. It was also partly due to the mistakes and weaknesses made by the other leading Bolsheviks such as Trotsky. Trotsky was seen as too powerful because he was the leader…

    • 885 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Corruption In Animal Farm

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The two were opposite in character and possessed different views for the future. Lenin informed the public of his wish to spread the revolution to surrounding nations while Stalin, opposed every word. In result, Stalin exiles Trotsky from Russia to eliminate any trace of competition. Stalin declares himself as dictator and has Trotsky and later assassinated. Stalin gains control of the Communist Party and gradually reverses the principles of Lenin and transforms the Soviet Union into a government very similar to…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In fact, Trotski is quoted saying “We have not organised the revolution to kill”(Spartacus). However, there were too many groups trying to destroy the Bolsheviks. This forced Vladimir Lenin to create the “Extraordinary Commission for the Suppression of the Counter-Revolution” also known as the Cheka; A secret police force. While the creation of this group was Lenin’s idea, Trotsky was put in charge, and repeatedly eliminated numerous enemies of the revolution. This was Trotsky’s first step in winning the civil war. When the “Whites” attacked the Bolsheviks and started the Civil War, Lenin appointed Trotsky as the Commissar for War, and President of the Supreme War Council. Thus, Trotsky single handedly was responsible for the Bolsheviks victory in the Civil War after defeating all enemy threats with terror and fulfilling the head leadership roles he was appointed to. Trotsky was extremely valuable to the Bolsheviks due to the fact that without him, they would have lost the Civil War. Without Trotsky, there would have been no one suitable to fill his numerous positions in which he had to make hard decisions that conflicted with his personal morals and mastermind many of the Bolsheviks victories. In addition, the vicious, blunt leader rebuilt the Russian army with the help of the Red Guards and through a recruiting and training process which proved difficult due to the fact that most officers supported the “Whites”. Trotsky was single handedly responsible for increasing the amount of soldiers from 7,000 in March 1918 to 5 million in Sep 1920(Brown, 1990). Without the essential rassemblement of this army, Trotsky would have not had the fire power to order Red Guards to ruthlessly put down the revolt of the Kronstadt sailors in March of…

    • 1557 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics