A Level AQA HIS2LThe Impact of Stalins Leadership

zigzageducation.co.
uk
Become a published author...

Photocopiable/digital resources may only be copied by the purchasing institution on a single site and for their own use
Register@
PublishMeNow.co.uk
Contents
Thank You for Choosing ZigZag Education............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Teacher Feedback Opportunity..................................................................................................................2
Terms and Conditions of Use....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Teachers Introduction.................................................................................................................................2
Stalins Russia 19241941: A Timeline......................................................................................................3
Wider Historical Context The Soviet Union: Revolutionary and Communist................................5
Background: From Lenin to Stalin..........................................................................................................5
The Development of Communism in Early Twentieth-Century Russia.............................................6
The Nature of the Russian Economy......................................................................................................7
Stalins Rise to Power...................................................................................................................................9
Stalins Rise to Power between the Death of Lenin and the Beginning of the
Second Revolution of 19281929.............................................................................................................9
Stalins Defeat of the Left and Right Opposition and Establishment of Personal Rule
between 1924 and 1929...........................................................................................................................11
Stalins Rejection of the NEP: The State of the NEP Economy in 1928.............................................17
Summary Strengths and Weaknesses of the NEP by 1928..............................................................17
Stalins Motives in Launching Rapid Economic Change....................................................................18
Springboard 1: Stalins Rise to Power...................................................................................................19
The Agricultural Revolution and Industrialisation: 19281941..........................................................21
Stalins Political and Economic Motives for Collectivisation of Agriculture...................................21
Collectivisation and the War against the Peasantry between 1928 and the Early 1930s................22
The Impact of Collectivisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941....................................23
Industrialisation 19281941.......................................................................................................................26
The Motives for Planned Industrialisation..........................................................................................26
The Impact of Industrialisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941..................................28
The Successes and Failures of the First Three Five Year Plans, 19281941.......................................30
Springboard 2: Industrialisation and Agricultural Revolution 19281941.......................................34
The Terror State, 19341941.......................................................................................................................37
The Kirov Murder (1934) and its Effects..............................................................................................37
The Motives for the Purges and the Great Terror...............................................................................38
The Role of Stalin and Other Key Individuals in the Terror..............................................................39
The Impact of the Terror on the Party, the Armed Services and the Soviet Population as a Whole
................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Springboard 3: The Terror State and its Impact on Culture and Society, 19341941.......................47
Stalins Russia by 1941...............................................................................................................................49
The Impact of Stalinism on Ideology, Culture and Society................................................................49
The Role and Impact of Stalinist Propaganda.....................................................................................52
What was Stalinism and its overall impact on the USSR in this period?.......................................54
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the USSR on the Eve of War in 1941...........................................61
Springboard 4: Stalins Russia in 1941..................................................................................................72
Strengths and Weaknesses of Stalin as Soviet Leader (19241941)...................................................75
Revision Summaries..................................................................................................................................76
How did Stalin Consolidate Power between 1924 and 1953?...........................................................76
Stalins Rule: Key Events in the Soviet Union (19241941).................................................................78
Revision Quiz on Stalin and the Soviet Union (19241941)...............................................................80
AQA HIS2L: The Impact of Stalins Leadership 192441 Page 1 of 10982 ZigZag Education, 2013
Answers to tasks.........................................................................................................................................82
Bibliography and Further Reading..........................................................................................................87
Teacher Feedback Opportunity
Teachers Introduction
This document is designed to help teachers deliver, and students study for, a key module which is featured as
an important A Level Modern History topic.
Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union for almost 30 years following the death of Lenin and the revolutionary
seizure by the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917. During the period between his emergence as leader in the early
1920s and the countrys invasion by Germany in 1941, the Soviet nation had been transformed from a
backward agricultural society into a major economic and industrial power, emerging as a global superpower
after 1945. This transformation was achieved amid great social struggle and hardship for much of the
population, but the steady progress made meant that during this almost 30-year period the country became a
much more important and powerful nation on the whole, taking on a key role in international affairs from the
early 1940s onwards.
The material is produced in an easy-to-read way, with key terms and phrases highlighted and visual content
(images, photos, etc.) featured to enhance learning. The resource is split into four sections to reflect the four
main bullet points of the specification, with the topics of agricultural revolution and industrialisation merged
into one section in order to reflect how they overlap and are connected to each other. At the end of each
section, there is a springboard exercise with key questions to test student knowledge, alongside essay plans
which can be used as the framework for students to tackle exam-style questions. There are regular tasks and
talking points in the resource which can be used as formal assignments or, more casually, as question-and-
answer sessions to generate further discussion. There are also specific assignments for students to engage in,
including revision summaries, quizzes, flow charts and diagrams.
There is also an accompanying 28-slide PowerPoint presentation that is aimed at complementing and enhancing student
learning of some of the key issues, events and individuals discussed throughout this period of history. This valuable
visual summary can be used as either an initial course overview, be gradually utilised in stages to consolidate more
detailed aspects of the course content, or as a revision summary as you approach the examination for this module.
This document seeks to explore and assess the key issues and events during Stalins sustained period of
power between the specific period of 1924 up until 1941, particularly how he gained power against a number
of rival figures, why he pursued the industrial and economic policies he did (such as the Five Year Plans), the
scale and nature of the purges, and the repression he inflicted on Soviet society in order to keep social order,
as well as the key preparations for war from the late 1930s onwards.
Stalins increasingly dominant leadership and his significant role in influencing and shaping such key events
is assessed and analysed throughout, and his relations with key individuals are also highlighted. His long-
term legacy is also assessed and focused on, in particular the overall impact of Stalinism on wider Soviet
society.
It is hoped that such material can enhance existing materials and introduce some new teaching techniques
into the delivery of the subject, while making learning more enjoyable for students. The material can be used
in its entirety in a sequential way to support the complete syllabus or, alternatively, can be dipped in and out
of to supplement and bolster existing materials (which you may be short of) or to vary your teaching of the
topic.
Free updates
Benfree
Register your email address to receive any future Williams,
updates* BA (Hons), MA, April 2013
made to this resource or other History resources your school has
purchased, and details of any promotions for your subject.
Go to zzed.co.uk/freeupdates
* resulting from minor specification changes, suggestions from teachers
and peer reviews, or occasional errors reported by customers
Stalins Russia 19241941: A Timeline
191 Tsar Nicholas II (right)
7 abdicates following revolution
in Russia in February. Russia
has a provisional government
until the Bolsheviks seize
power in October.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk sees the 191
Russians leave World War One early in 8
March 1918. The Soviet Constitution is
established.
*Russian Civil War begins between

Bolsheviks (Reds) and Tsarist loyalists
(Whites). Harsh policy of war
communism introduced.
192 After winning the Civil War, Lenin
1 initiates the New Economic Policy
(NEP) in order to regenerate the ailing
Russian economy.
Russia formally becomes the Soviet 192
Union/USSR. Stalin becomes General 2
Secretary of the Communist Party.
Start of Stalins Rule

192 The NEP helps the Russian
4 economy to steadily improve.
Lenin dies and is succeeded
by Stalin (right).
Leading Communists Zinoviev, Kamenev 192
and Trotsky are expelled from the 7
Communist Party by Stalin, who
strengthens his grip on power.
192 Stalin launches the first of his Five Year
8 Plans, focusing on collectivisation of
agriculture and industrialisation,
abandoning Lenins New Economic
Policy.
Trotsky is exiled and Bukharin and Rykov 192

are removed from office as Stalin 9
strengthens his grip on power.
Policy of de-kulakisation commences.

193 Famines occur in
1- various parts of
193 the Soviet Union
3 (notably in the Ukraine), following the
drive towards collectivisation of
agriculture.
The second Five Year Plan is launched

First phase of The Terror is sparked by 193
the assassination of senior Communist 4
Kirov.
193 Stalin creates a new constitution, which
6 strengthens his grip on power and curbs
individual civil liberties. A Family Code is
Stalin launches the worst phase of his also introduced placing restrictions on
Terror, resulting in the execution and homosexuality, divorce and abortion.
exile of millions, including some notable
political figures from the senior ranks of
government.
Collectivisation of Soviet agriculture 193
virtually complete. 7
193 The third Five Year Plan gets under way,
8 with the emphasis on preparation for war.
The Terror draws to a close with European
war increasingly likely.
The MolotovRibbentrop Pact, a treaty of 193
cooperation between former arch- 9
enemies Germany and the Soviet Union,
precedes the beginning of World War Two,
with the Soviets initially supporting
Germany and launching an invasion of
Finland.
194 Trotsky (below) is assassinated by
0 Stalinist agents in Mexico City.
Operation Barbarossa 194
sees Hitler (left) attack the 1
Soviet Union. Stalin
changes allegiance to
support Britain and
France, and later the USA.
The Grand Alliance is

formed by the end of the
year between the Soviet
Union, Britain and France.
Fierce fighting on Soviet territory with
Germany as part of The Great Patriotic
War.
Wider Historical Context The Soviet Union:
Revolutionary and Communist
Background: From Lenin to Stalin

In January 1924, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (left) died of a heart attack at the age of 54
following a period of illness. Lenin was the founding father of the Russian
Revolution who had masterminded the communist seizure of power in late 1917.
This uprising saw the removal of a provisional government that had held a fragile
grip on office following the downfall of the Tsarist regime in the early months of
1917. Lenins death left a significant political vacuum that Joseph Stalin would
eventually fill, and from this role he would dominate the new state of the Soviet
Union, sometimes referred to as the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), for the
first part of the twentieth century.
Communism (Marxism) The Theory

During the revolutionary period of the early twentieth century, Lenin had adopted
the ideas of Karl Marx and converted them into a practical revolution. Karl Marx
(left) was a German intellectual who co-wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 with
Friedrich Engels. Marxists believed that capitalism was a system that was doomed to
failure and would eventually be replaced by communism. His theory called on the
workers of the world to unite, and he claimed that history was ultimately shaped by
the struggle of different classes in conflict against each other.
A politi
Communism is a system of government in which the state plays a fundamental role in the planning and control of the economy. This leads to a sing
Communism was a controversial ideology (or world view) as, under the proposed communist model of
society, factories would be run for the benefit of all people, not for the profit of a few capitalists. Land
would become the property of the people, not for the wealth and possession of a few wealthy
landowners, and such a viewpoint shocked many established politicians across the world. Communists
believed that people should work for the good of everyone, not for selfish profits; one group would not
exploit or make profit from the labours of another. Communist society would therefore be run on the
principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, and workers and Soviets would
have much greater rights in the workplace. However, democracy was not seen as being compatible with
strong centralised government and such a concept was not embraced by the Soviet Union after 1917.
Part of the appeal of communism was that it was international in nature, and it
proposed that workers of the world were to unite against their bosses. In practical
terms this meant that, according to communist theory, German workers could
unite with Russian workers, and that the real enemy of all workers were the
bourgeois capitalists, not the fellow workers of another country. This is why the
communists were opposed to World War I and why, once they had seized power
in late 1917, they were keen to negotiate Russias early withdrawal from World War I, which was
achieved in March 1918.
Communists also believed that religion was used to keep workers in their place and it should therefore
be abolished. Marx famously described it as the opium of the people, due to its drug-like power to control
wider society. As a result of communisms radical ideas, the ruling classes feared its impact not only in
their own countries but in other countries too, in case revolutionaries in one country tried to spread
revolution elsewhere. Such fears meant that the Soviet Union faced a generally hostile international
community from 1917 onwards.
The Development of Communism in Early Twentieth-Century Russia

Following the spread of Marxism across much of Europe throughout the late nineteenth century, the
Social Democratic Party was established in Russia in 1898 and it broadly followed the ideas of Karl Marx.
Lenin was a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), but in 1903 it split into two groups due to
internal divisions. These groups were:
The Bolsheviks the majority led by Lenin who wanted a small party of dedicated revolutionaries
to lead the masses and direct the revolution.
The Mensheviks the minority group who wanted a democratic party which would serve the
masses. This made them more popular than the Bolsheviks and Leon Trotsky was a prominent
member.
Many political agitators and revolutionaries at the start of the twentieth century felt that Russia was not a
likely candidate for revolution due to its vast size and diverse geography, its limited industrialisation and
The Communist Manifesto of 1848 was co-written by Friederich Engels and Karl Marx (right and centre below). Marx and Engels a
This document in turn influenced Lenins (left) idea of professional revolutionaries seizing power (a Vanguard). This viewpoint was
its predominantly undeveloped agricultural nature. According to strict Marxist theory, a nation needed
to have passed through a sufficient stage of industrial development in order for it to be ready for a full-
blown class revolution, and Russia was some way off reaching that stage in comparison to countries
such as Germany and Britain. However, a backward Tsarist regime and well-organised revolutionary
activity combined to make a revolution a reality.
Summary of the Origins of Russian Communism
i
From the early years of the twentieth century, Lenin took the view that it was time for the proletariat
Lenin wrote WhattoIswin
(workers) To Be Done?
their in 1902,
struggle which
against thecontained themiddle
capitalist following ideas:(bourgeoisie), who controlled
classes
He had little time for democracy and no confidence in the masses. Lenin believed that the working classes did not have a revolution
industry and who made a profit out of the labours of the workers. In Lenins view, such a development
He wanted a centralised and tightly disciplined small party of full-time members who did what they were told (a Vanguard).
Somecould beLenin
accused instigated by elitist
of being revolutionary leadership
and dictatorial, but he even if the
believed thatcountrys
there wasindustrial development
no other way was
forward other limited.
than by dictatorship a
The task of the communists was to lead the workers in a revolution and take control of society, especially
Lenin revealed himself to be ruthless and focused towards revolutionary goals, and was not prepared to compromise or do deals wit
the economy. Many of Lenins views outlined below were put into practice in the second revolution of
1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power amidst the ongoing turmoil of World War I. Such views and
values were embraced and adopted by Stalin from 1924 onwards, although the latter made greater use of
brutal and ruthless methods to practically achieve his aims, with less focus and emphasis on the ideals of
those who carried out the revolution in 1917.
The Nature of the Russian Economy

Background: Lenins New Economic Policy (NEP)
Following the 1917 revolution and the 19181920 civil war that followed, the
newly established Soviet Union found itself in a state of significant economic
difficulty and faced social unrest in parts of the country, notably the
uprising at the Kronstadt naval base in 1921. Many historians and political
theorists have cited the countrys lack of industrialisation as making it
unsuitable for the communist system of government. However, Lenin (left)
remained undeterred and was determined to make communism work from
his base in the countrys capital city of Moscow.
Due to the food shortages that were becoming a problem by the early 1920s, Lenin decided to give up
and modify some of the communist policies he had promoted and opted to compromise in order to
retain wider popular support. As a result in 1921he introduced a New Economic Policy that was pursued
in order for the communists to deal with growing opposition and to secure their grip on political power.
This was an example of Lenin being practical and pragmatic rather than ideological. Lenin believed that
the policy would be a short-term option to preserve the communist system and strengthen it in the long
run, stating: We are taking one step backwards, to later take two steps forward. While critics claimed that such
actions justified original Marxist concerns that the country was not ready for communism, by 1925 the
policy had regenerated the countrys economy to the extent that it was back to its pre-war levels, and as a
result the communists strengthened their grip on power.
Policy
1. The state kept control of the commanding heights, e.g. large businesses, heavy industry, coal, iron,
steel, oil, engineering, banking.
2. Small businesses were returned to private ownership and allowed to produce for profit.
3. Workers were given incentives, e.g. bonuses and piece rates to produce as much as possible.
Businesses and workers began to work harder with rewards available.
4. Peasants had to supply a quota of grain but they could sell any surplus on the open market so they
produced as much as possible.
Aims of the NEP:

To abolish the state monopoly of small- and medium-scale manufacture, retail trade and services was
in fact what the government did in 1921, while keeping heavy industry, banking and foreign trade in the
hands of the state.1
i For your Information
Summary of the New Economic Policy (NEP), 1921
Aim
The major aim of this policy was to get the peasants to produce food for the army and the towns and to stimulate industrial recovery.
Method
To give people incentives to produce more (economic liberalism) and to restore some principles of private ownership and capitalism.
1 Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union, (1985), Ch. 5, p. 119

Task 1
Summarise the key positives and negatives of the development of communism in the Soviet Union
up until the early 1920s.
The Development of Communism in the Soviet Union

Positives Negatives
Questions and Talking Points

1.What factors allowed the Communists to seize power in Russia in 1917?
2. Why was Russia an unlikely country to fall to communist revolution?
3. Who were the most important individual influences behind the communist revolution in 1917?
4. Why was the New Economic Policy controversial?
Stalins Rise to Power
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
YOU WILL NEED TO: SPECIFICATION FOCUS
Understand the reasons and factors Stalins rise to power
behind Stalins rise to power following
the death of Lenin
Understand how Stalin defeated left
and right opposition
Develop knowledge of how Stalin
established a personal dictatorship
between 1924 and 1929
Stalins Rise to Power between the Death of Lenin and the Beginning of the
Second Revolution of 19281929
Having overthrown the regime of Tsar Nicholas II (right), and led the revolution and
consolidated the communist state in Russia from 1917 onwards, Lenin became an
iconic and dominant figure within the early years of communist rule. Buildings,
streets and cities were named after him, e.g. Leningrad. However, by the early 1920s
he suffered a period of illness and endured several strokes, and as a result his
political power was significantly limited from approximately 1922 onwards. During
these final years of his life and in the immediate years after his death in 1924, a fierce
power struggle subsequently developed to take over his position of leadership at the
top of the Soviet Union.
The two leading figures most likely to succeed him were very different personalities with contrasting
views of how to strengthen the countrys revolutionary values:
Joseph Stalin (left) seemed dull and solid a grey blur. In 1917 Stalin was made
Commissar for the Nationalities after the 1917 revolution, and in 1922 Lenin
made him General Secretary of the Communist Party, a position not initially
thought to be very important. However, as party membership grew it became a
more significant post, and it effectively became a power base within the Soviet
Communist Party. Stalin was ambitious, and he used his post to put his
supporters in key positions and to keep his finger on all branches of the
communist movement.
Leon Trotsky (left) was exciting and dynamic but was also rather aloof and
arrogant. He had been involved in the 1917 revolution and as Commissar for
War he created the Red Army, which was highly effective during the civil war
(19181920), and he instilled discipline into this organisation. He was a great
orator, as well as being a man of ideas and intellect with great charisma.
However, he was not personally ambitious and did not organise his supporters
against Stalin, who was far more ruthless about winning power.
The two rivals also disagreed over ideology. While both were opposed to Lenins compromise with capitalism (New
Economic Policy), both had different solutions for Russias problems:
Summary of Key Differences between Stalin and Trotsky
Stalin believed in socialism in one country, that is that the Communist Partys efforts should be
concentrated on the USSR. He argued that the country should not divert its energies to promoting
revolutions in other countries and making enemies intent on destroying the USSR, as the capitalists
had tried to do during the civil war. Stalin therefore felt that it was a bigger priority for the Soviet
Union to secure its own communist political system rather than try to export it elsewhere, and this
would lead to the creation of a centralised and bureaucratic structure of government. While Stalin
viewed this policy as a more practical and realistic approach in tune with the mood of the times (in
comparison to Trotskys more radical plans), it also allowed him to emphasise his differences with his
main rival for the leadership.
By contrast, Trotsky believed in permanent worldwide revolution, arguing that revolution in just
one country like the USSR could not succeed in the long term as the capitalist countries would work
together and try to destroy the Soviet revolution. Trotsky, therefore, wanted to prioritise the spread of
communist ideology into other nations by providing support to political allies across Europe in
particular. His more ambitious and idealistic version of communism also sought to give more rights
and powers to the workers or local Soviets, as opposed to Stalins more centralised and bureaucratic
approach.
The Power Struggle to Succeed Lenin

As the NEP appeared to strengthen the communist grip on power and stabilise the
economy following a shaky period between 1918 and 1920, by the early 1920s Lenin
became aware of some likely successors to his position. However, he realised too late
that Stalin was attempting to seize power in the event of his death. Stalin had used
his role as the General Secretary of the Communist Party since 1922 to strengthen
his personal power base by placing his supporters in key party positions. Stalin was
an effective administrator and put such skills to practical use in furthering his own
position. He appeared to have a greater amount of focus and ruthlessness in
comparison to some of his leadership rivals.
Despite the two figures working fairly closely together within the senior
levels of the Soviet government (see left), in 1922 Lenin became wary of
Stalins motives and wrote a testament warning the Communist Party about
him. It was read to the Communist Partys Central Committee after Lenin
died in early 1924, but, in May 1924, the body decided to suppress it, with
Stalin and his allies being influential in this decision. This was primarily due
to the feeling among the partys hierarchy that Stalin seemed less of a threat
than the more radical figure of Trotsky, so Stalins position was therefore
secured. However, in hindsight, this was a missed opportunity for Stalins
main political rivals.
There was no clear or obvious successor to succeed Lenin, nor was there any formal procedure or
mechanism in place to decide on a successor. For a short period of time there was a collective leadership
of the country, which Lenin was himself said to favour in the form of his policy of democratic
centralism. This focused on power being retained at the centre in order to coordinate the vast nation, but
it was an ironic term given that there was little or no democratic freedoms in the country and ordinary
people had few civil or political rights. The country was also used to having strong and dictatorial
figures leading the country, namely the various Tsars of the past and more recently Lenin. The key
political figures in this collective post-Lenin leadership were Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, known as
the triumvirate, ably supported by Bukharin who was viewed as more of a theorist and thinker and a
Stalin loyalist to begin with. Kamenev and Zinoviev were viewed as left-wing radicals while Bukharin
was more of a moderate, and all were viewed as potential rivals to Stalins leadership ambitions at
various points in the mid-1920s.
A less predictable and more maverick figure in this communist hierarchy was Trotsky, described by one
historian as the potential Bonaparte of the revolution (who could) arise and take over.2 However, Trotsky
lacked a significant following within the Soviet communist movement, and his personality was
somewhat flawed in that he was viewed as not being a great team player and had built up enemies over
the years. It would, in fact, be the more focused and organised figure of Stalin that would ultimately
seize power and use it in a dominant manner, taking control of the revolution as a powerful individual.
This collective model of governance was not attractive to ambitious figures such as
Stalin, and he swiftly began manoeuvring himself into the most powerful position
by playing a prominent and active role in Lenins funeral arrangements, with his
main rival Trotsky not even in attendance. Stalin then embarked on a relentless
process of steadily seizing the reins of power following Lenins death, associating
himself closely with the iconic former leader and consolidating his grasp on the
leadership and organisation of the Communist Party throughout 1924 and into
1925, when he emerged as the clear and primary leader of the Soviet Union.
Stalins Defeat of the Left and Right Opposition and Establishment of Personal
Rule between 1924 and 1929
To further strengthen his grip on the Soviet political system, Stalin particularly set about removing all
opposition within his cabinet (Politburo), especially Trotsky and the left-wing radicals who favoured
exporting global revolution, but whose position on this matter did not generate widespread belief that
permanent revolution was practically possible in the circumstances of the time. Stalin would exploit
this weakness in the lefts position, and, by 1925, he had emerged into a clear position of superior
Politburo
The Politburo was the primary governing body of the Soviet Union, involved in practical policy-making and deriving from the Central Committee.
independent power due to his powers of patronage, networking and control over the Party Congress and
local secretariats due to his former position as General Secretary. This role gave him access to key party
information and the ability to set the political agenda. However, while he had engineered himself into
pole position to succeed Lenin in the long term, in the mid-1920s Stalin was still far from secure in the
long term with a number of possible rivals still active, and this had the potential to threaten his position.
Stalin began his purge of his major rivals by dealing with the figure that he considered to be his main
threat, Leon Trotsky (left). A struggle for supremacy with his main rival was possibly under way as early
as 1923 as the two men sought to manoeuvre themselves into the best position in the event of Lenins
death. When Lenin died, Stalin sought to neutralise and sideline the influence of Trotsky, who at one
time had been the clear front-runner to succeed Lenin. Trotsky missed Lenins funeral (for reasons that
some
i For your Information
Lenin on Stalin in his 1922 testament:

Stalin has amassed great power into his hands as Secretary and I am not sure whether he will always use it wisely.
historians have attributed to Stalins plotting) and Stalins decisive move became evident in early 1925
2 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, pp. 3435

when Trotsky was dismissed from his position in government (as Military Commissar).
This occurred after Stalin aligned himself with the more moderate right-wing members
of the Politburo, who agreed to vote against Trotsky and reject his more radical agenda.
Trotskys Menshevik past was also a source of suspicion from the Bolshevik majority
within the Soviet Communist Party.
By 1925, Stalin had further strengthened his own position by successfully removing his
original radical allies Kamenev and Zinoviev from their positions of power within the
Politburo. Although they subsequently established a left-wing United Opposition
with Trotsky to oppose Stalins leadership in 1926, there were too many personal and political differences
between them, and they failed to work cooperatively in organising opposition to the increasingly
powerful leader. The emergence of such obvious factions within the communist leadership was despite
the fact that such left and right opposition had been outlawed by Lenin at the 10 th Party Congress in
1921. However, such a ban on factions ultimately helped Stalin in the long term in that he was able to
appeal for party unity and suppress rival factions once he had gained a strong position for himself. By
accusing rivals of forming such factions he was able to remove some of his key political opponents.
In 1927, Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party and exiled,
and in 1929 he was expelled from the Soviet Union. By this stage Stalin
was strengthening his grip on both the party structure and the Soviet
government, with one historian commenting that the main body of the
Communist Party rejected Trotskys alternative views:
Without having read them [they] were committing themselves to

blind obedience to Stalins wishes [and the] increasing
authoritarianism of the movement after 1928.3
Stalins focus on socialism in one country ultimately won over many communists and ordinary Soviet
citizens who wanted some stability after revolution and civil war, and who feared that Trotskyite
permanent revolution would lead to even more instability across the country. For over a decade Trotsky
lived abroad in various countries, from where he attacked and criticised the Stalinist regime, until he was
eventually tracked down and assassinated in 1940 in Mexico City by one of Stalins agents.
Authoritarian
A society or type of government where people submit to the authority of a small number of politicians and there are usually limited individual liber
Such extreme authoritarian developments were further evident in 19281929 when Stalin removed from
office right-wingers like Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, although he had previously formed a temporary
alliance with such moderate political figures by initially supporting the NEP in the mid-1920s. The right-
wing moderates argued for a more gradual approach to achieving full-blown communism and that the
NEP should remain for at least 20 years, fearing that rejecting it for more collectivisation would mark a
return to the hardships of war communism during the civil war of 19181920.
However, Stalins position on this key policy was deliberately unclear, and his earlier support for the
NEP was a pragmatic and tactical move on his part, as he formed such brief alliances primarily to isolate
and undermine Trotsky. He also wanted to initially appear loyal to the memory of Lenin and his policies
in the short term at least, as this would strengthen his overall position within the Communist Party
leadership. This alignment with the NEP was, however, only temporary, and by the late 1920s Stalin
ruthlessly removed such moderate communist figures who wanted to continue with the NEPs
3 L Kochan and R Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia (1962), Ch. 19, p. 420
compromise with capitalist methods (as established under Lenin).The right-wing moderates were
ultimately used by Stalin and, having naively trusted him, were then discarded when they had served
their purpose. For his part, Stalin viewed the right as being un-socialist in their ongoing support for the
more cautious approach of the NEP. By 1929, he was far more secure in power and had steadily
established a personal dictatorship.
Task 2
Summarise the differences and similarities between the key policies and ideas of Stalin and Trotsky.
Issue Stalin Trotsky
Economic policy
Social impact of
policies
Interpretation of
communism
Personality and
leadership
qualities
Summary: Stalins Other Key Rivals
Kamenev and Zinoviev (first and second figures above) were traditionally from the left-wing
(ex-Mensheviks) and more radical faction of the Soviet Communist Party. They were generally opposed
to Lenins NEP, which they viewed as a dilution of communist principles. They were ousted from senior
political office by Stalin from the mid-1920s onwards and were both executed in the first wave of Stalins
purges in 1936.
Rykov and Bukharin (third and fourth figures above) were from the right-wing and more moderate
faction of the Soviet Communist Party. They generally supported the compromise with capitalism that
was the NEP. They were sidelined from the Politburo by the late 1920s and they were later executed in
the final stages of Stalins Great Purge in 1938. Their ally Tomsky committed suicide in 1936 amidst the
Great Purge.
Summary: Spectrum of Positions of Leading Soviet Communists (Early 1920s)
The Left (radicals)CentreThe Right (moderates)
Stalin
Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky

Trotsky Kamenev and Zinoviev
*All such positions are relative to the ideas of communism (e.g. Trotsky was a radical communist and Rykov a
moderate one).
Factors that helped Stalin secure the Soviet leadership after 1924:
Bonapartism
Derived from the rise to power of Napoleon in France in the late eighteenth century, this view promotes the idea of a strong, centralized state and a
Stalin used his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party to appoint his allies to key
positions within important political institutions of the Soviet Union.
Stalin won the argument and the promotion of socialism in one country rather than permanent revolution.
Stalin outmanoeuvred his leadership rivals with a series of temporary alliances that gradually
strengthened his own position and which weakened the position of his rivals one by one. He
particularly crushed the threat of Trotsky and his potential for Bonapartism.
Stalin associated himself closely with the generally popular memory and legacy of Lenin, a vision that
his propaganda promoted. Within this process he also isolated his main rival Trotsky.
Stalins changing views towards the NEP and his eventual rejection of the policy ultimately helped
him to strengthen his position against his key rivals.
Stalin successfully suppressed Lenins criticism of him within his testament of 1922 until it was too
late, making effective use of party machinery and political institutions in the process.
Stalin had a more focused and ruthless attitude towards becoming Lenins long-term successor than
his major rivals, who were divided and did not cooperate against him.
Overview: Stalins Consolidation of Power and establishment of

Personal Rule (19241929)
By the mid-1920s, it was clear that Stalin had defeated his political rivals
from both the political left and right and was now in a dominant position
within the Soviet Communist Party. He had ultimately isolated opponents
by clever tactical manoeuvring and by using the policy of divide and
rule, which saw him form temporary alliances with different groups of
people in order to isolate and remove various opponents in quick
succession. None of his rivals among the Communist hierarchy had the
same level of tactical knowledge or networking skills, and Stalin would ultimately be strengthened after
removing figures he had previously formed alliances with. Many of Stalins main political rivals had
ultimately underestimated him in his burning desire to succeed Lenin, and his non-intellectual status
was often a reason for this. However what he lacked in formal intellect he made up for in organisational
skills, and he Stalin subsequently replaced the ousted left- and right-wingers with his own men who
owed their loyalty directly to him.
Some historians have argued that Stalin placed key supporters and allies in important political positions
and institutions within the new Soviet state such as the Central Committee (a powerful body that
managed party affairs between each Party Congress), which in turn voted for the Politburo, which was a
kind of cabinet of key ministers. The Secretariat had administrative responsibilities for the day-to-day
running of party affairs, while the annual Party Congress was a key symbolic event that symbolised a
public show of organisational strength. Stalin took effective and dominant control of these important
Communist Party bodies to such an extent that one historian has commented:
Stalin was able to utilize his tightening grip on appointments to weaken his political rivals. 4
4 Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 5, p. 145

Summary of Key Governing Bodies of the Soviet Union under Stalin
Central Committee Politburo Secretaria
Established by the Communist in the

Established
1890s, it in
managed
1919 and
andinvolved
plannedinoverall
practical
party
political
affairs;
Adecision-making;
often
bureaucratic
likenedbody
to asimilar
board
involved
to
of adirectors
in
Cabinet,
the daily
appointed
administra
by
Annual Party Congress
Elects
The annual meeting of Communist Party delegates (although its meetings became less frequent under Stalin.) It primarily acted as a symbolic displa
Stalins Leadership and Communist Factions

It has also been claimed that this process was part of the so-called Lenin Enrolment between
approximately 1923 and 1935, which was a drive to recruit more working-class members into the
Communist Party, who ultimately owed their allegiance to Stalin in his key role as General Secretary
when the policy began. Stalin then went on to remove those prominent political figures from the
moderate centre and replace them with such loyalists, so that he eventually had total power, much as the
Tsar had. Although Stalin remained loyal to the memory of Lenin, he was more concerned with the
practical politics of managing the country as opposed to developing communist ideology and policy.
Having initially removed any potential rivals

Faction from high-ranking office in the 1920s, Stalin
A group of people with shared beliefs that exists within a larger group or body. found himself fairly secure as the successor
to Lenin. By the mid-to-late 1930s, the vast majority of his rivals had been executed, assassinated or
exiled. Stalins steady seizure of power was ultimately an example of how conflicting personalities,
clashing rivalries and factions, as well as the role of key political institutions, influenced the
development of the Soviet political system during its early years of existence. Stalin had ultimately
prevailed following this process, and this experience put him in a strong position from the late 1920s
onwards.
Autocratic
A system of government that focuses on one individual having unlimited power, and who is unaccountable to the wider population for their actions
Dictatorship
A dictatorship is a political system where policy-making is dominated by one powerful individual leader.
As a result of such developments, an autocratic Tsarist dictatorship had been overthrown and replaced
with a communist one in less than ten years. By 1929, Stalin had absolute power, and this reflected the
countrys historical tendencies for a strong and powerful individual leader, with various historians and
commentators christening Lenin and Stalin Red Tsars.5
5 One recent example of this has been Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, (2004)
Stalins Rejection of the NEP: The State of the NEP Economy in 1928
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand the state of the NEP Stalins rise to power
economy in 1928
Develop knowledge of Stalins motives
in launching rapid economic change
Stalins eventual abandonment of the NEP from 1928

onwards was primarily due to the fact that he felt that the
policy had served its purpose by securing the communist
regime in the short term following the difficulties created by
the Russian Civil War in the early 1920s. However, while it
had generated some stability for the governing regime and
was viewed as associated with Lenins powerful legacy, it
had not delivered sufficiently quick economic growth or
industrialisation.
As a consequence of his growing frustration with the NEP, Stalin instead wanted to commence with his
own distinct policies, namely the Five Year Plans that involved collectivisation and the forced acquisition
of agricultural produce. Stalin felt that the countrys dominant agricultural sector was backward,
inefficient and required significant modernisation and investment in order for the country to maximise
its economic and industrial potential.
This was a reflection of Stalins desire for the USSR to be more rapidly industrialised and urbanised as
quickly as possible. He also sought the creation of a more thoroughly communist society, and he was
ultimately opposed to rich farmers such as the kulaks and entrepreneurs like Nepmen making profits
from the NEPs economic opportunities and its promotion of private enterprise at the expense of the
wider collective population. In seeking to abandon the NEP, Stalin was therefore distancing himself from
a key policy of Lenin, although, on the whole, he sought to positively associate himself with Lenins
(above left) general role as the Father of the Revolution.
Summary Strengths and Weaknesses of the NEP by 1928

Strengths:
It created economic growth following the struggles of war communism in the early 1920s.
It helped to stabilise the communist regime in power.
It provided independent economic opportunities and freedoms for ordinary Soviet citizens.
Weaknesses:
It delivered a slow and cautious level of economic growth and industrialisation.
Heavy industry remained sluggish and inefficient.
The policy created inequality between the various peasants and farmers, with some citizens
growing wealthy and others remaining poor (in conflict with communist principles).
Stalins Motives in Launching Rapid Economic Change
Although the NEP arguably brought a degree of economic stability to the emerging Soviet nation, Stalin
ultimately came to reject what he believed was the relatively slow and cautious rate of economic and
industrial growth that the policy produced, as well as its bourgeois values that compromise communist
principles. Stalin ultimately had his own ambitious plans for a further revolution from above and
desired to accelerate the countrys rate of economic development and strengthen its industrial base.
In pursuing this approach, he also sought to extend the Communist Partys control of the large cities into
the vast and diverse countryside, and one of the first concrete signs of his new methods could be seen
when, in 1928, he introduced collective farms as part of the first Five Year Plan, which represented a
new direction for this communist nation. Such farms were referred to as either Kolkhozes, meaning
collectivised farms that had stemmed from the merging of a large number of small plots of formerly
private farmland, or Sovkhozes, which were state-run farms usually formed following the seizure of
large plots of land or substantial private estates from wealthy landowners following the 1917 revolution.
This approach reflected the increased centralisation of power in the Soviet Communist Party among a
relatively small number of people (see Diagram 1) and, in practical terms, resulted in a limited number
of powerful political figures at the top of a vast bureaucratic structure of government officials and
administrators.
Beginning of the Second Revolution

Firmly secured at the helm of the Soviet Unions leadership by the late 1920s, Stalins agenda for
governing the vast country from this period onwards was essentially an attempt by his ruling regime to
find a way forward for a backward country seeking industrialization.6 In seeking to promote such rapid
economic change, Stalins policy approach was evidence of his ultimate rejection of the NEP and its use
of private commercial incentives. At the same time, it indicated his ambitious motives for the Soviet
Union to become a more powerful and significant nation in terms of its industrial and economic capacity,
and this would become apparent in the ambitious programme of Five Year Plans launched from 1928
onwards.
In using the power of the centralised state to achieve this aim, Stalin created the potential conditions to
generate powerful central leadership and a stronger domestic status for the Soviet Union, which could
then lead to an enhanced influence for the country in international affairs. In moving away from the NEP
towards a system of more rapid industrialisation, some historians have claimed that Stalin was therefore
signalling the start of the second revolution from the late 1920s onwards.

1.What methods and tactics did Stalin use to succeed Lenin as Soviet leader from 1924
onwards?
2. Why did a collective model of leadership not fit in with the traditional model of government in the
Soviet Union / Russia?
3. How democratic was the Soviet Union when Stalin came to power?
4. Was it Stalins strength of the weaknesses of others that best explain why Stalin succeeded Lenin as
Soviet Leader?
6 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, p. 34

Springboard 1: Stalins Rise to Power
Discussion Points
1. Who were Stalins main rivals to succeed Lenin in 1924?
2. What were the key policy differences between Stalin and his rivals?
3. How did the left-wing and right-wing communists differ in their overall policy approach?
4. Why was the NEP (New Economic Policy) a key area of disagreement between the leading Soviet
communist figures in the mid-1920s?
5. What was the significance of Lenins testament?
6. What factors were most significant in Stalin eventually succeeding Lenin?
7. How did Stalin use key political institutions and bodies to secure his position in power?
8. Compare and contrast the importance of Stalin and Trotsky within the Soviet leadership from the
early 1920s onwards and summarise why Stalin ultimately triumphed over his main leadership rival.
Writing Frame 1 Essay Structure Plan
Using the previous sections notes, try to answer the following essay question:
?
How significant was the role of personalities in explaining why Stalin became leader of the Soviet
Union after Lenins death in 1924? (24 marks)
Following an introductory section that proves some background information/context and addresses the
question, students should assess the factors listed below, analysing how each one was influential in
Stalins eventual accession to the leadership of the Soviet Union, but with particular attention to his
personality as suggested by the question.
1. Stalins personality in relation to those of his various rivals who were divided among themselves
and not as focused on gaining the leadership, e.g. Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Rykov.
2. Stalins more focused and ruthless attitude to becoming Lenins long-term successor and the
various tactics and methods he used to outmanoeuvre his various rivals.
3. The importance of ideology and practical politics rather than personality, notably Stalins views
about socialism in one country as opposed to the more radical (and arguably unrealistic)
Trotskyite vision of worldwide revolution.
4. The significance of Stalins eventual rejection of the NEP and his promotion of the Five Year
Plans.
5. Stalins ability to continue to associate himself with Lenin and how he used this to isolate Trotsky
in particular.
6. Stalins previous position as General Secretary of the Communist Party and his subsequent
powers of patronage, appointment and ability to manipulate and control key political
institutions.
7. The suppression of Lenins 1922 testament and Stalins ability to form temporary alliances within
the Politburo and Central Committee.
Analysis: Each of the above factors needs to be analysed and assessed in terms of its overall significance
in explaining why Stalin was Lenins eventual successor. Was personality the most important factor, or
can you challenge the assumption within the question and conclude that another factors, issues or policy
developments were more or equally significant in explaining Stalins eventual seizure of the Soviet
leadership?
Conclusion: Focus on the question title and address the issues raised in the main body of the answer,
seeking judgement in terms of which were the most significant of these factors in explaining why Stalin
eventually succeeded Lenin, and whether his strong personality was the most significant factor in
exclaiming why this happened.
The Agricultural Revolution and Industrialisation: 1928
1941
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand the political and Agricultural Revolution
economic motives for 19281941
collectivisation of agriculture
Develop knowledge of the nature of
collectivisation and the war against
the peasantry between 1928 and
the early 1930s
Stalins Political and Economic Motives for Collectivisation of Agriculture

Farming was generally seen as an inefficient industry in the early years of post-
revolutionary Russia and, by the early 1920s, there were about 25 million farms that
used primitive equipment and located in plots that were far too small. By the end of
the 1920s, agricultural output was only just back at the pre-war levels of 1914. Stalin,
therefore, identified the need for drastic reform and modernisation of this rather
backward sector as a necessity if the USSR was to progress and survive in economic
terms and as a nation. In some ways, what he sought was a cultural transformation of
a backward rural nation into a more urban and industrialised one.
Once he was firmly secure as Lenins long-term successor, Stalin subsequently affirmed his belief that the
key to the countrys industrial development lay with improving and restructuring its vast agricultural
resources. There were four key political and economic motives that drove this more collectivist
approach:
1. Stalin wanted cheap food to keep factory wages low and production costs down (economic).
2. Farming had to be mechanised for greater efficiency in order for surplus labour to go to the towns to work in the
factories (economic).
3. The government could make a profit from grain and it could be invested in industry, but this involved the
seizure of privately produced grain that some peasants had previously sold for private profit under the NEP
(economic and political).
4. As much grain as possible had to be produced and exported for foreign currency, which could then be used to
fund vital equipment which the USSR did not yet have (economic and political).
Such motives were primarily political and economic in nature and were ultimately aimed at bolstering
both Stalin and the countrys overall strength.
Collectivism
A system of public ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. Such a system involves the people collectively, but is usually
In effectively abolishing private farming, Stalin instead sought to focus on the use of a more conventional
Marxist approach, nationalising farms and organising centralised control of agriculture by the state, with
centrally based and mechanised farming equipment developed in order to improve overall efficiency. For
example, Machine Tractor Stations (MTS) were set up by the government, and they hired out tractors
and equipment to the collective farms. These collective farms were:
1. Run by the state and the peasants had to join them.
2. Made up of 50100 small farms run as one unit.
3. All livestock and equipment were held for common usage.
Collectivisation and the War against the Peasantry between
1928 and the Early 1930s
There was another
important reason
why Stalin wanted
Kulaks
Kulaks were wealthy Russian farmers who owned large areas of land and who had benefitted from the NEP.
to restructure
agriculture. About one in five peasants were regarded by the government as kulaks, who broadly
speaking were wealthy farmers who made significant private profits from running their own farms. With
the word literally translated as tight-fisted, Stalin regarded kulaks as commercially motivated class
enemies who were effectively saboteurs and opponents of communism and its goals. This viewpoint of
Stalin was particularly strengthened during the grain procurement problems experienced during the late
1920s, when there were difficulties collecting grain from parts of the countryside.
Stalin saw the kulaks as representing the gradual approach of the right-wing moderates, and, in tackling
them, he could also seek to discredit his political rivals from this faction, e.g. Bukharin. He also used the
kulaks as examples of individual greed, and this helped him win over other parts of the poorer
peasantry to support the drive towards collectivisation, as much of the countryside did not naturally
support the Bolsheviks and their revolutionary ideas. This desire to transform the consciousness of the
rural masses and help them develop a more revolutionary outlook aligned with that of the government
was a challenge for Stalin throughout his time in power. Although some peasants were won over by a
combination of both forceful persuasion and sustained repression, whether he ultimately achieved
socialism in the countryside by the time the country was attacked by Germany in 1941 has been a
matter of historical debate.
The definition of a kulak was not always clear:
In effect the label kulak was now applied to anyone suspected of resisting the grain deliveries or of
being unwilling to join the collectives.7
The capitalistic kulaks, with their own land and profits, and who had benefited from the NEP, were not
consistent with the type of communist society that Stalin favoured. Many kulaks feared losing their
farms, livestock and independent land-ownership, and so a class-based land war resulted, with
government forces often using violence to seize grain and other farming produce from the more
productive farms in particular. The peasantry in general were unprepared for the scale and extent of the
changes being brutally imposed on them from above, and many were willing to fight back as a result.
The Red Army and the communist youth wing (Komsomol) were prominent in such government-led
activities, and the historians Lionel Kochan and Richard Abraham have described this period as being an
attempt by the communist authorities to achieve the liquidation of the kulaks as a class.8 This was
particularly evident during the grain procurement crisis of 19271929 when agricultural produce was
forcibly and violently seized from many farms in order to feed the growing urban population. Many of
the wealthier peasants resisted with similar violence and others refused to work, with some burning
their crops and killing their cattle in protest.
Stalins brutal response to such opposition is often referred to as dekulakisation, which, in practice, saw
this particular class of peasant targeted by the government and persecuted. Villages were wiped out and
millions of kulaks were killed, arrested, exiled or sent to labour camps (gulags) in Siberia to starve and
die. Such persecution of this group continued throughout the 1930s due to the fact that Stalin and his

allies felt that the rich and wealthier peasants were holding the rest of the country to ransom for their
own selfish interests.
The kulaks ultimately found themselves at the harsh end of this overall policy of collectivisation, and the
ferocious government-led attacks on them as a group ultimately led to Stalin succeeding in his key aims
of taking greater control of the countryside and imposing his own version of communist ideology in the
process. In adopting this aggressive approach, Stalin desired to export his revolutionary values to the
countryside and, in doing so, he broke the resistance of the different types of peasantry and replaced
private farms with a system of collective farms and state farms.9

1.Briefly summarise the reasons why Stalin wished to reform the USSRs agriculture and why
he ran into opposition.
2. Why were the Kulaks opposed to Stalins policies of collectivisation?
3. What was the reaction from ordinary peasants to Stalins attempts to export socialism to the
countryside?
The Impact of Collectivisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand the impact of Agricultural Revolution
collectivisation on the Soviet 19281941
economy and society to 1941
Famine and agricultural problems had been common occurrences

from the early 1920s onwards (see starving children in the Ukraine
left), as the fledgling Soviet state had attempted to get to grips
with the countrys vast size and associated agricultural problems.
Inefficient forms of production and the past history of serfdom
had meant that much of the land was inadequately maintained
and inefficiently managed.
Collectivization had been achieved at a more rapid rate than expected, and this was evident in Stalins
article in the communist magazine Pravda in March 1930 entitled Dizzy with Success, which was
broadly optimistic but which also indicated that much more hard work was needed in relation to the
Five Year Plans:
A serfdom is a system of modified slavery where peasants worked on large estates of land owned by a landlord. Such peasants had few rights and li
It is a fact that by February 20 of this year 50 per cent of the peasant farms throughout the USSR had
been collectivized. That means that by February 20, 1930, we had overfulfilled the five-year plan of
collectivization by more than 100 per cent.... some of our comrades have become dizzy with success
and for the moment have lost clearness of mind and sobriety of vision.
(The full article can be found on the following web link:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm)

In this article, Stalin spoke of the radical turn of the countryside towards socialism, but his
comments appeared to suggest that some of his colleagues were satisfied with the pace
of change and that this might lead to a slow-down in the rate of collectivisation,
temporarily at least. However, the article clearly indicated that Stalin was ultimately not
content with such otherwise rapid progress, and he desired the rest of the country to be
collectivised as quickly as possible as this decade progressed (and by 1937 this was more
or less the case).
Negative Developments
While the rate of collectivisation was fairly rapid, in his own distinct attempts to resolve such issues
affecting agricultural production from the late 1920s onwards Stalins policies appeared to make matters
significantly worse, in the short term at least. In 1931, the harvest failed and, in 19321933, a severe
famine followed, which was particularly devastating in the Ukraine area. This famine is referred to by
Ukrainians as the Holodomor, literally meaning killing by hunger, and estimates of deaths range
between four and 10 million in approximately a year.
This was an important part of the Soviet Union often referred to as the breadbasket of Europe due to its
agricultural richness and capacity for growing key farming resources such as grain and wheat. Stalins
regime denied the extent of such a famine, and critics and historians have since accused the communist
authorities of deliberately creating such famine conditions in order to force the wider population into
submission, with some even branding it a form of genocide (the deliberate mass murder of a group or
race).
The results of Stalins agricultural policies were initially disastrous for the countryside and food
production, causing significant social unrest and chaos in the short term. Stalin was forced to make some
concessions to allow some private farming to continue. As a result of such adverse developments in the
countrys rural areas, by 1934 livestock levels were only half the 1928 figure and, due to collective
farming, many peasants lacked the individual incentive to work hard. Many of the exiled and killed
kulaks had also been some of the most talented and productive farmers, and, even by 1941, the overall
pace of agricultural output was only back at the levels of the late 1920s. Some critical historians have
further argued that the policy directed valuable resources (e.g. mechanisation of equipment) into the
countryside, yet this did not result in dramatic improvements for the government in terms of agricultural
output and production.
Positive Developments
Stalin quickly realised that without food his plans for industry would collapse, so he gave peasants
greater incentives to join collectives. Peasants were allowed to own private plots on which they could
grow produce to sell, as long as the collective farm met its government-set targets. There was also some
evidence of improved educational and health facilities within parts of the countryside due to such a
collective approach.
As a result of this review of his policies, agricultural output improved in the long term, as did the new
systems overall efficiency, which in turn fuelled the countrys industrial progress. Grain production in
particular was used as a key resource to be sold to raise foreign currency and then purchase equipment
that the Soviet Union couldnt produce itself. This progress is evident in the following figures:
In 1935, food rationing ended as levels of agricultural production steadily grew.

By 1937, 99% of the land had been collectivised.
Livestock figures began to increase, although it took until the 1950s to return to the levels of 1929.
By 1941, all peasants were working on collective farms, which maximised the potential agricultural
output.
Chain reaction of agricultural growth
Agricultural growth Industrial and economic growth More foreign currency
Further agricultural and industrial growth

Purchase of better quality industrial equipment and machinery
Agricultural reform also ultimately resulted in Stalin successfully exporting the practices of socialism out
of the towns and into the countryside, stabilising food supplies to the growing urban population and
developing effective agricultural mechanisation such as Machine Tractor Stations. However, Stalin was
later to admit that the cost of collectivisation and agricultural modernisation had been an enormous
one to the country and its stretched resources, primarily in the social upheaval it caused across much of
the countryside.
Industrialisation 19281941
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand the motives for planned Industrialisation 1928
industrialisation 1941
The impact of industrialisation on the
Soviet economy and society to 1941
The Motives for Planned Industrialisation

Once he had seen off his rivals and taken a firmer grip on the countrys
levers of power by the late 1920s, Stalin began to focus on the practical
implementation of his policy of socialism in one country. This policy
approach was both economic and political in its motives, seeking to
strengthen both Stalin personally, the Communist Party in power, and the
country as a whole. As his period of rule stretched into the 1930s, Stalin
increasingly feared an attack by hostile capitalist countries, especially
neighbouring Germany, who he feared wanted to destroy communism
under the rival dictatorial figure of Adolf Hitler (from 1933 onwards). Stalin
believed that the USSR was at a disadvantage in relation to much of the
Western capitalist world due to its slow industrialisation and the losses it
had experienced during World War I. In 1931, he said:
We are fifty to a hundred years behind the capitalist countries. We must close this gap in ten years or
they will crush us.
Stalins approach was therefore a rejection of the NEP which he felt was delivering industrialisation too
slowly. In practice, his alternative approach of developing what became known as a command economy
meant a highly centralised political approach that would concentrate, control and plan all of the
countrys resources in building up the economic and industrial base of the Soviet Union (USSR) at a
much quicker pace (see propaganda poster, above left).
Stalin felt this was particularly important given that the country faced such a hostile international
environment, with many countries continuing to be fiercely opposed to communism. The focus on
improving levels of agricultural output as the 1930s progressed (although at a harsh social cost) would
then be used to invest in an improved industrial infrastructure, with the need for greater mechanism,
factories and development of heavy industries across the country. This policy was therefore shaped by
the following basic principle:
Only with a productive agriculture would the resources be there that could sustain meaningful
transfers from the agricultural sector.10
Urbanisation
The growth of urban areas (larger towns and cities) due to industrial development and migration from the countryside.

Industrialisation would therefore be fuelled by agricultural growth, and alongside such industrial
developments would be significant urbanisation, namely the movement of agricultural workers to new
communities of workers in urban towns and cities who would be employed in the proposed factories. In
order to control and regulate such rapid population movement, an internal passport system was
introduced across the country from the early 1930s onwards, which marked a further development of
state control over individual citizens. This particular urban consequence of Stalins industrialisation
would steadily alter the overwhelmingly agricultural nature of the country that had existed until the
early part of the twentieth century, with the new houses and industrial buildings changing the landscape
and geography of the nation considerably as a result.
The whole of Russia was hurled into a gigantic struggle to build socialism. 11
Stalin therefore wanted to industrialise the USSR as quickly as possible and to build up production in
heavy industry namely coal, iron, steel and engineering all of which were vital to the countrys defences
and long-term future security. Stalin felt that if the country was to be a long-term success in the face of
such considerable external opposition and difficulties, then it must push ahead quickly with no
compromises, and so in seeking to formally distance his leadership from the NEP in particular, a series
of major industrial plans were devised and rolled out from the late 1920s onwards.
Under this new approach to the countrys industrial development, industry was managed by the State
Planning Commission (Gosplan). This body laid down targets for each industry/factory, and targets had
to be reached or workers/managers would be punished. This formed the background to the first Five
Year Plan that was established at the 15th Party Congress (1927) and launched in 1928.
This policy approach has been described as representing a revolution from above,12 and the countrys
second revolution13 (after 1917), due to the radical restructuring that Stalins government sought to
initiate. Targets were initially too ambitious and at times quality was sacrificed for quantity, while Soviet
propaganda boasted of false and exaggerated achievements to sustain the reputation of Stalins
ambitious programme. As a consequence, some government officials presented false figures for fear of
reprisals if they did not meet their goals and targets.
Between 1928 and 1941, Stalin therefore initiated three distinct Five Year Plans:
First Five Year Plan: 19281932 (focusing on collectivising agriculture and growing heavy industry in
particular)
Second Five Year Plan: 19331937 (focusing on improving the countrys transport infrastructure, developing
chemical production and extending the range and scope of consumer goods for ordinary citizens)
Third Five Year Plan: 19381941 (focusing on defence requirements and preparing for a possible future war)
12 See Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 6,
The plans concentrated on building up the countrys heavy industries (coal, iron and steel), developing
key aspects of the countrys infrastructure such as hydroelectric dams at Dnieper, and improving
communications such as roads, canals and railways. Industrial centres were built in remote locations
such as the Urals and Siberia, deliberately sited away from the threat of any potential invasion in the east
of the country. They were therefore broadly focused on ensuring that the country could survive in both
periods of peace and war. Centres of industrial production subsequently developed at locations such as
Magnitogorsk and Stalingrad, locations that came to symbolise the core aims of the Five Year Plans.
Some historians have commented on Stalins apparent obsession with large-scale industrial projects
Totalitarianism
A political system where there are no limits to the states authority and where every aspect of peoples lives is controlled and regulated by governm
sometimes referred to as Gigantomania. This state ownership of the means of production appeared to
illustrate the Revolution from Above in action, and such a system of centralised political control saw the
emergence of a system of government that was increasingly viewed as being totalitarian in nature.
Although the first Five Year Plan had very ambitious targets that arguably could never have been
achieved, by the mid-1930s it had achieved annual growth rates of 14% and created a much improved
situation for the Soviet Union. The second and third plans had more realistic targets, and by 1941 both
coal and electricity production had increased five-fold. The overall impact of such developments can be
described as follows:
A mighty engineering industry had been created. Russia, the country where two-thirds of all ploughs
had been wooden until 1910, now boasted industries producing machine-tools, turbines, tractors and
metallurgical equipment and produced more electricity than it could use. 14
The Impact of Industrialisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941

As the 1930s progressed, the focus and direction of the Five Year Plans changed once the initial surge
towards industrial and economic progress was under way. The needs of ordinary people of the USSR
had been generally neglected by the determined focus of Stalins industrial policies in the first Five Year
Plan, and the availability of decent consumer goods was limited, while they were also quite expensive on
the whole. The second Five Year Plan did try to address this issue by instilling some degree of limited
choice and incentives into the countrys system of economic production and its range of consumer
goods, while maintaining the overall focus on improved industrialisation of the first Five Year Plan. It
also aimed to improve the general infrastructure of the nation with the electrification and improvement
of transport systems (e.g. the prestigious Moscow Metro and improved canal links), as well as the
development of the countrys chemical industry.
Impact on Society
As the 1930s progressed, millions of workers migrated to towns from the countryside to become the new
urban proletariat (workforce); however, it remained the case that poor social conditions were viewed as a
necessary consequence of the relentless drive towards economic and industrial progress in the face of a
hostile external world. As a result many such workers lived in poor conditions, with the Five Year Plan
ultimately failing to improve the quality of everyday goods. Discontent among the workforce was
ruthlessly and brutally suppressed by the states terror tactics that originated from Stalin himself,
although he was vigorously supported by elements of the Communist Party and the secret police in
particular. The purges of the 1930s hampered the rate of economic growth by persecuting many workers
in key industries; the trade unions were run by the Communist Party, and these bodies forced workers to
accept longer hours and less pay a most unusual activity for trade unions!
Impact on the Economy
There were high-profile and significant rewards for those with special
skills or who worked hard, like Stakhanov (right), a worker who was
used by the government to encourage other workers to be as
productive as possible. Stakhanov was said to have dug sixteen times
his coal quota in one shift and went on to have mythical status and
followers known as the Stakhanovites. Workers were regularly fed
propaganda stories such as this and encouraged to work hard towards
the glorious goals of communism, and the use of propaganda would
become a very important feature of Stalins rule.
Propaganda
Propaganda is organised control and supply of information, with the purpose of assisting or damaging the cause of a government or political movem
Ordinary Soviet citizens were told that if they followed this example they could
earn honours and bonuses, and the most productive workers got more
rations, better housing/living conditions and more holidays. In
receiving greater rewards for their extra efforts, the Stakhanovites were in
conflict with a key Marxist policy: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need. However, Stalin justified this revision of Karl Marxs
beliefs in order to generate increased production for the Soviet state.
In 1933, Adolf Hitler (left), a fierce anti-communist, came to

power in Germany and was consistently hostile to the Soviet Union from the outset.
Such developments again prompted a rethink of the strategy and direction of the Five
Year Plans, and as a result Stalins industrial policy focused on building up the
countrys armaments such as guns and tanks which were essential for survival in the
outbreak of any future war with his capitalist Western enemies.
The third Five Year Plan therefore marked a further shift in emphasis, focusing on war preparation and
improving national security and military technology from the mid to late 1930s onwards. In this
development and planning for a war economy, Stalin was indicating that he fully expected an attack at
some time from Hitlers Germany, and when it came in 1941, a crucial factor in the Soviet Unions
survival was the countrys enhanced industrial power.
Summary of the Five Year Plans and Their Changing Focus
First Five Year Plan (19281932)Second Five Year Plan (19331937)Third Five Year Plan (19381941)
Sought to develop the collectivisation of agriculture
Improve andofthe
the range growth of
consumer industry
goods as well asPrepare forsystem
transport the likely
andoutbreak
chemicalofindustries
war by building up levels of m
The Successes and Failures of the First Three Five Year Plans, 19281941
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Develop knowledge of the successes and Industrialisation 1928
failures of the first three Five Year Plans, 1941
19281941
Positives of the Five Year Plans

In practical terms, Stalins industrial and agricultural policies were fused into the Five
Year Plans, and they ultimately worked in the sense of achieving improved levels of
economic and industrial output, as the table below clearly indicates:
1928 1932 1937

Coal (tonnes) 35 million 64 million 128 million
Oil (tonnes) 11.7 million 21 million 28 million
Iron (tonnes) 5.7 million 12 million 14 million
Steel (tonnes) 4 million 6 million 17 million
Electricity also experienced some major growth from the late 1920s onwards, and, between 1928 and
1932, industrial production as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) rose from 28 to 41%. This
rapid rate of growth also created significant levels of employment in such key industries, as well as
boosting the countrys exports and generating wealth in the process. The national infrastructure also
generally improved and modernised, and, although the Soviet Union was starting from a relatively low
base, during the 1930s, many Soviet communists were filled with optimistic confidence, as the country
rapidly developed from a backward agricultural nation into a significant industrial power.
Indeed, the encouraging rates of economic growth in the Soviet Union during this period saw some
growth in everyday pay and ordinary living standards, appearing to indicate that the country was
catching up the capitalist West, which, by contrast, was struggling amid an economic crisis following the
1929 Wall Street Crash:
At a time when industrial production in the principal capitalist powers had actually declined below the
level of 1913, (by the early 1930s) that of the Soviet Union showed an almost four-fold increase over
the level of 1913.15
This degree of economic and industrial transformation formed a positive contrast with the capitalist
West, and it allowed some idealistic Soviet politicians to believe that as the 1930s commenced they were
in the process of establishing a society of a new kind, far superior to the decadent and dying capitalist countries
of the West, then in the grip of the Great Depression.16 Despite various social pressures and ongoing upheaval
across Soviet society, the countrys industrial and economic progress continued throughout the
remainder of the decade, and by the time Hitler eventually invaded the country in 1941, the USSR had
become the worlds third most advanced industrial power behind the USA and Germany. On a personal
level, Stalins own status benefited from the progress made by these plans, and this ensured that his own
position became more secure and entrenched.
Negatives of the Five Year Plans
However, the Soviet Unions impressive rate of progress in reaching this position
of industrial strength was achieved at great human and social cost, with many people facing continued
poor living conditions, social dislocation and limited material benefits. Poor sanitation and
overcrowding were issues caused by the high volume of population movement to the new industrial
centres, while many areas located outside the large towns and cities and which were detached from the
traditional areas of heavy industry did not experience many economic benefits or significant
industrialisation, and they continued to experience significant levels of rural poverty. This raised
questions about the effectiveness of Stalins overall industrial strategy and the methods of production
that the plans employed.
There was also limited choice and poor quality of everyday goods available to ordinary people during
the period of the Five Year Plans, and this was reflected in basic living conditions for much of the
population. There were also ongoing problems across the country in relation to the supply of raw
materials, and the centralised communist ideology was also imposed across the wider country, limiting
the economic freedoms that many individuals had enjoyed under the NEP.
While there was clear evidence of both economic and industrial progress in the Soviet Union from the
early 1930s onwards, there were ultimately destructive and negative consequences experienced across
wider Soviet society in order for the country to become an advanced industrialised society and to gain
such a powerful global position. Many parts of the country experienced significant social hardship and
the scale of transformation and industrialisation differed across the country, with some parts suffering
much greater levels of poverty and social upheaval compared to others. The purges of the 1930s also
disrupted the progress of the plans, and many government targets were not reached as a consequence.

1.Explain how the Five Year Plans led to economic and industrial progress but poor social
conditions in the Soviet state.
2. How was collectivisation of the Soviet Unions agriculture linked to industrialisation during the
1920s and 1930s?
3. How and why did the focus of the Five Year Plans change from the late 1920s onwards?
Task 3
Summarise the key positives and negatives of the Five Year Plans (19281941).
Five Year Plans (19281941)

Positives of the first Five Year Plan Negatives of the first Five Year Plan
(19281932) (19281932)
Positives of the second Five Year Plan Negatives of the second Five Year Plan
(19331937) (19331937)
Positives of the third Five Year Plan Negatives of the third Five Year Plan
(19381941) (19381941)
Task 4
How successful were Stalins economic and industrial policies in the 1930s?
Positive Evidence
Negative Evidence
Springboard 2: Industrialisation and Agricultural Revolution 19281941
Discussion Points
1. Why did Stalin want to reform Russian agriculture from the 1920s onwards?
2. What was the connection between agricultural reform and industrialisation?
3. How did the policy of collectivisation impact on the rural parts of the Soviet Union?
4. How did industrialisation link to urbanisation?
5. In comparison to the NEP, how did the Five Year Plans represent a more traditional Marxist
approach to industrialisation?
6. How did the Five Year Plans change their focus during the 1930s?
7. How did external factors and influences shape the momentum of the Five Year Plans?
8. Compare and contrast the economic and social impact of Stalins Five Year Plans.
Using the previous sections notes, try to answer the following essay question: ?
Using the source extracts below and your own knowledge, assess how collectivisation and
industrialisation impacted on the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1941. (24 marks)
Source A:
In effect the label kulak was now applied to anyone suspected of resisting the grain deliveries or of being
unwilling to join the collectives.
Source: Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 6, p. 161
Source B:
At a time when industrial production in the principal capitalist powers had actually declined below the level
of 1913, (by the early 1930s) that of the Soviet Union showed an almost four-fold increase over the level of
1913.
Source: L Kochan and R Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia (1962), Ch. 17, p. 374
Source C:
It is a fact that by February 20 of this year 50 per cent of the peasant farms throughout the USSR had been
collectivised. That means that by February 20, 1930, we had overfulfilled the five-year plan of collectivisation
by more than 100 per cent some of our comrades have become dizzy with success and for the moment have
lost clearness of mind and sobriety of vision.
Source: Joseph Stalin, Dizzy with Success (Pravda, March 1930)
Following an introductory section that addresses the question, students should assess both the positive
and negative features of industrialisation and collectivisation between 1928 and 1941, particularly in
relation to the consequences of the Five Year Plans. Particular attention should be given to whether there
were more positive or negative implications for the Soviet Union as a result of such policies.
Positive features:
1. The Soviet economy grew significantly and the country rapidly industrialised during the period in
question.
2. Collectivisation and industrialisation transformed the country from a backward agricultural nation
into a growing and developing one.
3. The countrys economic and industrial growth was high in comparison to the capitalist West that
was enduring economic hardship for much of the 1930s, enhancing the Soviet international
reputation as a result.
4. The Five Year Plans significantly contributed to the Soviet Unions ability to sustain its military
efforts and war economy during World War II.
5. Agriculture became more modernised, state-regulated and mechanised due to collectivisation.
Negative features:
1. Not all of the country equally benefited from the economic growth associated with the plans, and
living conditions remained harsh for most people.
2. Individual liberties were suppressed as communist ideology was often violently imposed across the
entire nation, affecting both rural and urban parts.
3. The quality of goods produced by the countrys industrial output was not always of a good
standard.
4. The plans could not guarantee that raw materials could always be accessed or supplied to support
the countrys growing industrial needs.
5. The countrys agriculture endured major upheaval and sustained social unrest from the late 1920s
onwards due to collectivisation.
Analysis: Each of the positive and negative factors needs to be analysed in a balanced approach in order
to fully assess the overall impact of collectivisation and industrialisation, particularly as a consequence of
the three Five Year Plans during the period in question. Sources should be regularly referred to and
quoted in support of own knowledge.
Conclusion: Focus on the question and address the issues raised in the main body of the answer, seeking
a judgement on whether there were more positive or negative features as a result of the impact of the
Five Year Plans between 1928 and 1941.
The Terror State, 19341941
The Kirov Murder (1934) and its Effects
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand the circumstances of the The Terror State, 1934
Kirov murder (1934) and its effects 1941
Develop understanding of the motives
for the purges and the Great Terror
Understand the significance of the role
of Stalin and other key individuals in
the Terror
While Stalin was directing labour into factories and collective

farming schemes, he was also making sure that no significant
political opposition developed within the country, primarily
because of a system of state repression often referred as the
Purges or the Great Terror. Stalin initiated such purges
because from the early 1930s onwards he became increasingly
concerned about the levels of dissent and opposition to his rule
and felt threatened from two particular sources:
1. From criticism within the Communist Party, especially Lenins colleagues, the older Bolsheviks, for the methods
he was using in agriculture and industry.
2. From Adolf Hitler who had taken power in Germany in 1933 and who was determined to destroy communism.
The initial spark to instigate the purges was when Kirov, the Head of the Communist Party in
Leningrad, was assassinated at the end of 1934. This gave Stalin the excuse he needed to move against
perceived opponents. There has subsequently been speculation by some historians that Stalin arranged
the assassination, due to a perception that Kirov was possibly viewed as a potential rival for his position.
Stalins fear of the emergence of potential rivals to challenge his leadership had particularly come to a
This was an historical period of the Soviet Union between 1936 and late 1938. The alternative title refers to Yezhov, head of the Russi
head in the wake of the difficult Congress of Victors in 1934, where his popularity appeared to have
lessened, and some critics had argued that he was becoming complacent in his pursuit of a communist
society.
Kirovs death therefore gave the Soviet leader the opportunity to utilise the revamped and reformed
secret police (NKVD) to issue orders for the arrest anyone of questionable loyalty and to move against
his perceived opponents. In 1934, the NKVD had replaced the previous organisation with responsibility
for state security, OGPU. Stalin had already proved himself to be ruthless in dealing with initial
opponents of the Five Year Plans, e.g. the kulaks from the late 1920s, and such an approach to opposition
returned in the years 19361938, described as a period during which a wave of terror swept through society.17

During this early phase of terror from 19341935 onwards, about
one million people were executed and up to ten million sent to
harsh Labour camps known as gulags to live in dreadful
conditions where vast numbers died in poor conditions. Many
were forced to endure hard labour in working on key road-
building or construction projects as part of the countrys drive
towards industrialisation (see left).
In making connections with repressive and authoritarian rule in

twenty-first century Russia, one modern commentator has
described the tense atmosphere and the specific fear of arrest that
prevailed during across Soviet society primarily throughout the
1930s:
Few things embodied Stalinist terror more than the midnight knock on the door. For millions of
innocent victims it heralded interrogation, torture and a lengthy and all too often lethal sentence in
the communist concentration camps of the gulag.18
The Motives for the Purges and the Great Terror

As the Great Purge evolved into a prolonged phase of terror for much of the Soviet population, state
repression was broadly targeted at the following groups, particularly from the mid-1930s onwards:
1.Old Bolsheviks: Claimed that Stalins brutal methods were betraying Marxism and the proletariat.
Trotskyites were prime targets and Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in 1940.
2. Communist Party: Any member of the party who Stalin thought was hostile to his leadership, or a
rival, or who he simply didnt like.
3. Army: Four out of five marshals and one in three officers were purged, many accused of treason and
betraying secrets to a foreign power, notably Germany, and the impact has been described as follows:
In 193738, it had been Stalin who ordered the execution and removal of tens of
thousands of Red Army officers, including its ablest commanders. 19
The army was consequently left so weak after these purges that in 1940 it had great difficulty
defeating Finland, a militarily insignificant state, in the early stages of World War II. This
subsequently encouraged Hitler to invade the Soviet Union in 1941.
4.Ordinary People: Began to disappear, often never seen again once arrested. Stalins paranoia grew and
he saw plots everywhere. No one was safe from false or exaggerated charges, typical ones being
aiding a foreign power like Germany or plotting to murder Stalin. There was often no evidence but,
after torture, victims often confessed or died. Many middle managers were executed due to failing to
meet the targets of the Five Year Plans, and were made scapegoats as a result. The loss of their
18 Edward Lucas, The New Cold War (2008), cited in The Daily Mail, 18th January
2008,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509177/Putin-brutal-despot-dragging-West-new-Cold-War.html
expertise ultimately had a negative effect on the countrys overall rate of economic growth,
disrupting the aims and momentum of the Five Year Plans in the process.
The historian Robert Conquest coined the phrase The Great Terror in his 1968 book of the same name,
and it has appeared to appropriately and succinctly describe the impact of the mid-1930s purges on
Soviet society, accompanied by widespread state spying and surveillance. The height of this period of
terror was said to be between 1936 and 1938, and the most important of those accused of being disloyal
to the governing regime were given high-profile show trials before the cameras. Within the context of
Stalins growing fear and suspicion of fascist Germany under Hitlers rule, those accused were often
charged with spying for the Germans and always pleaded guilty to everything they were charged with,
although evidence was often far from convincing. They were then ruthlessly executed (usually by being
shot) by a regime which many had served loyally since the 1917 revolution and as communist agitators
against Tsarism before that.
Prominent victims during this period included one-time leading Bolsheviks Kamenev and Zinoviev in
1936, dealt with as part of the Trial of the Sixteen who were those on the left of the party. Bukharin and
Rykov were executed in the later phase of purges in 1938, while Trotsky was assassinated in exile in
Mexico in 1940. The nature of such purges tended to be sudden and brutal, as described below:
Like a bolt out of the blue, in August 1936 Kamenev and Zinoviev were charged with being part of a
Trotskyite conspiracy NKVD boards were given the right of execution and no appeal was allowed
[both] were tried, confessed and were executed.20
All these figures had been prominent political rivals of Stalin at the time of Lenins
death in 1924, and Stalin appeared to be removing any lingering threat they posed
in the most extreme way. Long-standing critics such as Ryutin were also executed
(1937), and other prominent Communists facing the prospect of being brutally
purged took matters into their own hands:
Not all of the deaths of leading Communists in this period followed an arrest.
[In 1936] Tomsky [left] committed suicide in order to avoid the fate of
Bukharin and Rykov.21
This refers to historical writing that is based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials. These materials are then f
The Role of Stalin and Other Key Individuals in the Terror

In pursuing this period of terror, Stalin was praised by his propaganda and supporters for removing
those who were betraying the working classes, the principles of the 1917 revolution and the USSR. The
show trials were a means of publicly displaying for both the country and the wider world the strength
and determination of Stalins regime to pursue its social and political goals. Such public trials also
emphasised the need for the Soviet public to support Stalins policies and of the dire consequences for
those who were seen as not doing so. This, in turn, sought to strengthen wider public support for the
policies through instilling a growing fear across the wider population, support which was further fuelled
by sustained government propaganda. There has subsequently been some significant historiographical
debate as to whether Stalins terror strengthened or weakened the aims and values of the Russian
Revolution, how extreme it was and to what extent Stalin was always in complete control in terms of
directing the scale of the purges.

However, what was clear was that society was completely terrorised and the rate of purges did
eventually slow down by 1938. By 1939, Stalin realised that such tactics had to be relaxed as the fear
across Soviet society was becoming unbearable, with all aspects of Soviet life, from the school to the
workplace, affected by this policy of government-led repression. Figures have varied on the final figures
affected by the terror, with government records somewhat vague, but general estimates have been
approximately 20 million deaths and up to 30 million deported during the period of the Great Purge:
Perhaps 20 million had been killed; 28 million deported, of whom 18 million had slaved in the gulags. 22
The purges became even more wide-ranging and peaked between 1936 and 1938,
and the communist government later blamed the behaviour of the secret police
(NKVD) and their successive leaders, namely Yagoda, Yezhov (left) and Beria for
such excesses and brutality inflicted on those accused of offences against the state.
Many such figures eventually became victims of the purges, with Yagoda executed
in 1936 and Yezhov similarly purged and executed in 1940. This was a reflection of
how few people Stalin really trusted, and he would quickly turn on those who had
previously been at the heart of his political system.
Beria remained in position for the rest of Stalins period of rule, and Stalin subsequently restructured the
countrys police force (NKVD), yet still attempted to maintain a rigid system of government control,
although it was not as paranoiac in the way it dealt with the wider Soviet population. However, despite
this there is little doubt that by the late 1930s the Soviet Union had grown into a fearsome police state,
with little concern for the civil liberties and freedoms of its citizens. The impact of the purges was felt
primarily in the countrys large towns and cities, and as a result it can be claimed that:
while the famine of 193233 scarred a generation of peasantsthe purge did the same for the urban
population.23
Authoritarian
A style of rule or political leadership that is characterised by absolute obedience to authority and seeks to restrict individual freedom.
Besides its great industrial growth and steady economic progress, Stalins regime would also be
remembered for its authoritarian nature and the excessive power generated for its political rulers and for
Stalin in particular. As his period as Soviet leader progressed, Stalin extended the surveillance powers of
the state and was said to have become increasingly paranoid about internal opposition and plots to
remove him, despite his ongoing purges and brutal removal of all potential threats. By the end of the
1930s, much of the communist hierarchy had been removed and replaced by a new governing elite that
was far more obedient to Stalin, and in this sense Stalin had considerably strengthened his position in
power. However, the nation as a whole could be said to have been negatively disrupted by such events.
22Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (2004), p. 649
Task 5
Summarise Stalins removal of his rivals from power and influence during the 1920s and 1930s.
Match up each individual with the year they were removed from office and later died at the hands of the
Soviet authorities (see earlier section on Stalins Rise to Power also).
Year removed from senior political

Name Year of death and how
office
Trotsky
Kamenev
Zinoviev
Rykov
Bukharin
Tomsky
The Impact of the Terror on the Party, the Armed Services and the Soviet
Population as a Whole
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Develop overall knowledge of the impact The Terror State, 1934
of the terror on the party, the armed 1941
services and the Soviet population as a
whole
The 1936 Constitution

While the purges were at their height, as a further means of bolstering his already excessive levels of
political control, Stalin produced a Constitution which his propaganda claimed was the most perfectly
democratic constitution anywhere and which would ultimately achieve a classless society. Its key terms
were:
1. The USSR had a parliament divided into two houses/assemblies:

(a) Soviet of the Union elected by all the people
(b) Soviet of the Nationalities representing the various nations that made up the USSR (50% of
population non-Russian)
2. Every male and female over 18 was allowed to vote by secret ballot.
3. Candidates for election could be nominated by a trade union, or any association, not just the
Communist Party, but they had to be approved by Stalin and the communists in reality. Although
there were elections, the voters had no choice Stalin claimed people did not wish to vote for any
opponent of the peoples party. Most people voted, just in case the secret police found out and
accused them of treason.
4. The Constitution listed freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press, but to most citizens this
meant nothing. The media were controlled by the state and censorship was widespread. To speak out
against Stalin was equivalent to treason and only supporters were free to speak, with no opposition
tolerated.
Stalins Control of Family Life

Despite its revolutionary background, Stalins regime was far from radical in its
policies on social and family issues. It developed conservative and often
particularly hard-line policies in relation to controlling and directing key areas of
social policy such as education, divorce and broader family life. It also sought to
extend the control and regulation of the centralised state into the nations
cultural life.
As he became more established, confident and secure in his position, by the mid-
1930s Stalin began to impose such conservative and traditionalist social values on
Soviet society. This was a further example of his government seeking to control
all aspects of everyday life from the centre, as well as a reaction against the perceived liberal approach of
Lenin to such matters. Lenin had taken a more tolerant view on such matters in the immediate post-
revolutionary era after 1917, legalising divorce and abortion and being supportive of womens
independent rights, viewing marriage as a means of keeping women in a subservient role and as a
capitalist institution.
In 1936, Stalin introduced a Family Code which declared that the family was the basis of Soviet society
and which placed legal restrictions on divorce, abortion and homosexuality. While such policies that
imposed a traditional family-based role for women alongside limited sexual freedom were not hugely
out of step with many other European nations, the repression inflicted on those citizens who went
against such rulings was excessive and extreme. Those that chose to deviate from such conservative
social conventions could therefore find themselves as victims of the purges of this period.
Such social conditions were further reinforced by legal decree during the war in 1944, although
improved educational opportunities alongside the significant numbers of women and children working
for the Soviet war economy did somewhat undermine this traditional and conservative model of society,
placing a strain on traditional family life.
Stalinist Repression of Religion

Stalins attitude towards religion was more aligned with traditional
revolutionary thinking and he viewed it as a rival source of control and
influence over the masses, just as Marx and Lenin had also done. Religion
had been viewed with particular suspicion since the outset of the 1917
Bolshevik revolution, with Lenin and his revolutionaries suspicious of the
wealth and power of the countrys established religion, the Russian
Orthodox Church, which in turn was hostile to the new communist regime.
Stalin broadly viewed religion as being anti-socialist, and therefore in
conflict with his own views and ideas of how society should be organised.
In many ways, the image of God was a dangerous rival to Stalins own, all-
powerful role across the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s onwards, as was
evident in the development of his cult of personality. It was for this reason
Symbol of the Russian Orthodox Church
that for most of Stalins period in power his regime engaged in persecuting
the church and conducting anti-religious propaganda.24 The Russian Orthodox Church therefore struggled to
maintain its existence during this period of state-sponsored repression, and since 1917 it had been a
divided and in many respects a demoralised body.25 The religious buildings of other traditions such as Islam
were also attacked and destroyed by the state during this period, with the numbers of mosques being
drastically reduced from 26,000 in 1917 to only 1300 in 1941.
Although freedom of religion was guaranteed in theory at least within Stalins 1936 Constitution, in
practical terms the Soviet leader had no intention of allowing it to flourish as an alternative power source
within a genuine civil society. In practice, therefore the right to practise religion came under significant
pressure and hostility from Stalins regime. Indeed, such was the long-term communist hostility to
religion that in 1924 the Soviet rulers had gone as far as establishing a League of Militant Atheists,
which, by 1933, had 5.5 million members. As a dimension of this sustained anti-religious stance of the
communist authorities, from the late 1920s onwards many of the churchs buildings and property were
seized and destroyed due to Stalins belief that collectivisation should be extended across all sectors of
Soviet society. One historian has observed that such religious repression was also linked to
collectivisation and the desire of the communist authorities to control the countrys various nationalities
and cultures:
The anti-religious campaign and the collectivisation of agriculture had devastating effects on some
national cultures, especially those that rested on a village culture and had a strong ecclesiastical
component.26

Alongside such disruptive consequences on a broader social scale, there were
negative human aspects to this approach. At the height of the Great Purge in the
late 1930s it has been estimated that approximately 100,000 religious figures
(priests, nuns, etc.) were killed as a direct result, with many others sent to the gulag
or forced into foreign exile. Some key figures to illustrate how the church was
persecuted during this period are as follows:
Between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox churches in the country dropped from
approximately 29,500 to less than 500.
Between 1917 and 1935, an estimated 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
Of these, 95,000 were put to death at the height of the purges.
However, once the sustained World War II was underway from the late 1930s onwards, Stalin did relax
some of his restrictions and repression of organised religion. In doing so he pragmatically acknowledged
the positive role it played in maintaining both morale and a degree of social order during an extremely
difficult period in the countrys history, with the very existence and survival of the Soviet state
threatened by the German invasion from 1941. In particular, the Church generated significant levels of
patriotic support for the war effort among its followers, and after the war the number of churches in the
country did start to steadily increase again. In this sense organised religion appeared to be evidence that
Stalinism was not all-powerful and that independent bodies within civil society could survive its
repression. However, in the long term, the power and influence of religion in the Soviet Union did
notably suffer during Stalins sustained period in power between 1924 and the German invasion in 1941.
Overview and Evaluation of the Purges

The purges of the mid-1930s were ferocious in nature and they suppressed any serious threat of internal
political opposition to Stalin, with an atmosphere of fear prevailing across Soviet society. People were
increasingly afraid of being critical of Stalin or his decision-making due to what happened during the
purges to those that were perceived as being disloyal. A system of state repression was therefore
accelerated and implemented during this period. In a negative sense, this led to a lack of debate and
scrutiny in relation to government policymaking at senior levels, while also disrupting the countrys
otherwise steady economic and industrial progress as key bureaucrats and officials were removed from
their positions. It ultimately resulted in an even more authoritarian system of government and
centralised control, with Stalin consolidating his power and gaining complete control over the levers of
government. This suggested that Stalin did not trust his citizens and felt in general terms they were still
not as loyal Communists as he expected them to be.
An alternative view is that Stalin appeared to be increasingly paranoid and obsessed by a fear of
potential rivals (most of which were imaginary) as the 1930s wore on, and this was the ultimate
motivation for this period of extreme repression. Even after the purges had fizzled out by the late 1930s,
he continued to display such tendencies, indicating that he never felt fully secure from threats to his
position, whether real or unfounded. While some historians have therefore argued that Stalin was guilty
of an overreaction to imagined opposition and others have argued that he was not always in control of
the purges and the broader culture of terror, by the late 1930s he had achieved a much greater degree of
security in his own personal position and was ultimately strengthened as a result, with many key
political rivals completely eradicated and the Communist Party structure appearing to be completely
under his control.
Political and Military Implications of the Great Terror
To what extent Stalin relied on terror to secure his own position has to be
compared with other key developments and policies from the late 1920s
onwards, for example the Five Year Plans and collectivisation, as well as his
extensive use of propaganda and the development of the cult of personality.
The external threat of war and possible invasion would lead to Stalins attention
turning to foreign policy and the security of the nation, with such internal
domestic fears becoming less prominent. Stalins dominant position had been
accelerated by the purges and placed him in a powerful position at the head of
a nation about to embark on a perilous and threatening military conflict.
However, the terror would have further adverse consequences in this respect, as the purges that have
been inflicted across society and within the military in particular would create problems for the
countrys ability, morale and motivation to wage war from the late 1930s onwards.

1. What advantages and disadvantages did the terror and purges bring to (a) Stalin and
(b) the Soviet Union?
2. Was Stalin and his governing regime strengthened or weakened by the purges?
3. What did this period of terror indicate about Stalins personality and style of leadership?
4. Why did religious organisations in the Soviet Union clash with Stalins leadership?
Task 6
Fill in the tables below and highlight the key issues relating to Stalins great purge or terror
during the 1930s:
Key Reasons for Stalins Purges in the 1930s
Key Consequences of Stalins Purges in the 1930s
Springboard 3: The Terror State and its Impact on Culture and Society, 1934
1941
Discussion Points
1. What factors prompted Stalin to launch the Great Purge in the mid-1930s?
2. What impact did the Great Purge have on Soviet society?
3. In what ways were the purges an opportunity for Stalin?
4. How did this period impact on Stalins individual power?
5. What were the major criticisms of the 1936 Constitution?
6. To what extent were the threats to Stalins position real or imagined?
7. How did the terror reinforce order and discipline across wider Soviet society?
8. Provide examples of how Stalins government was both totalitarian and authoritarian during the
1930s in particular.
Using the previous sections notes, try to answer the following essay question: ?
To what extent was individual freedom suppressed by Stalins terror and purges after 1934?
(24 marks)
Following an introductory section that addresses the question, students should assess to what extent
individual freedoms and liberties were suppressed by Stalins social policies and purges of the 1930s.
Examples must therefore be provided in response to the question.
Evidence that individual freedom was suppressed:

1. The purges of the mid-1930s persecuted large numbers of Soviet citizens, with millions either killed
or imprisoned.
2. Religious freedom was suppressed and the Russian Orthodox Church was targeted by Stalins
government.
3. Cultural, artistic and literary freedom was crushed by the governments emphasis on socialist
realism.
4. Political opposition was prohibited and Stalins personal power was strengthened by the 1936
Constitution and the growth of the cult of personality.
5. Individual civil liberties and social rights were subservient to the centralised government
bureaucracy.
6. A strict Family Code was imposed with sexual freedoms restricted.
7. Individual social and economic freedom was further limited due to the need to prepare for a likely
war from the late 1930s onwards.
Some individual freedom was arguably maintained, however:

1. Organised religion survived Stalins repression of the 1930s, and during World War II some religious
freedoms were restored and suppression of the established church relaxed.
2. Communist rule arguably encouraged some degree of political participation across society, allowing
some citizens to rise through the social ranks and become parts of the nomenklatura (the governing
administrative class of key Communist Party members).
3. Educational provision was improved and this provided more people with enhanced opportunities to
better their lives, with more employment opportunities for women due to the countrys military
needs following the eruption of conflict across Europe from 1939 onwards.
Analysis: While there appears to be more evidence that individual liberties were suppressed during this
period (19341941), both sides of the debate must be addressed before a conclusion is reached, even if
one argument appears stronger than the other.
a judgement on extent to which individual freedom was suppressed and whether there were any
positive social freedoms for ordinary people during the period in question.
Stalins Russia by 1941
The Impact of Stalinism on Ideology, Culture and Society
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Develop an awareness of the Stalins Russia by 1941
impact of Stalinism on ideology,
culture and society
Be fully aware of the role and
impact of Stalinist propaganda
Stalins growing levels of paranoia against perceived opponents ultimately meant that the Soviet Union
became an increasingly terrorised and repressed society between 1924 and 1941, and this had negative
repercussions for social, political and cultural freedoms within the country, which were virtually non-
existent by the outbreak of World War II. From the outset of Stalins time in power, debate and
disagreement were ruthlessly crushed by the ruling regime, and any indication of emerging dissent or
opposition (real or imaginary) was met with severe consequences. This was evident in its most extreme
sense during the purges of the 1930s. A centralised and bureaucratic version of communism
subsequently developed with an all-powerful leader at the helm, and any other versions or
interpretations of Marxist theory were not allowed to develop and alternative political parties were
prohibited.
Stalinism:
Impact on One-Party State
Society A political system with little or no competitive democracy, where the same political party is permanently in power.
It was arguably only the build-up to war from the late 1930s onwards that distracted Stalin from the
sustained internal repression that had steadily built up since 1924, and which therefore shifted his focus
to improving the countrys overall national security and defence. However, the emergency conditions of
war and the focus on national survival meant that political freedoms, debate and individual civil
liberties were also further sacrificed during this period. By the time of Stalins death in March 1953, such
personal dominance and the culture of a one-party state appeared to be absolute and all-pervading
across Soviet society.
Stalinism and Education

Stalin placed great emphasis on improving the educational levels of a population that had a poor level of
literacy on the whole. This was part of his broader ambition to develop and modernise the nation, but
also because he believed that a more educated population that followed traditional educational
standards was more likely to be productive, obedient and compliant in response to government orders.
A centralised government approach therefore saw education emerging as a key part of Stalins efforts to
transform the Soviet Union in line with his specific communist vision, with schooling made compulsory
for 10 years, discipline strongly enforced in schools and the requirement to wear school uniforms being a
key component of maintaining order in such institutions. There was a specific focus on promoting a
mood of nationalism and patriotism within the subject matter being taught, and ordinary Soviet citizens
arguably benefited in various ways from this focus on state-controlled educational improvements.
Such an overall approach sought to instil and maintain the habits of social order from an early stage of
peoples lives, alongside instilling a wider loyalty to the Communist Party and the governing regime.
Outside school, this degree of social discipline was further reinforced by young people being actively
encouraged to become members of the communist youth wing (Komsomol), which had a militarised
approach and took a hard-line position on social vices such as smoking and drinking alcohol.
In 1935, exams were reintroduced (having been abolished under Lenin

who disliked such academic competition and who dismissed them as
being bourgeois), and, by 1939, only 4% of men and 18% of women were
illiterate, which was significant progress in social terms. However, due to
state censorship, much of what was available to read was state
propaganda, such as the government-controlled newspaper Pravda. While
such general improvements in literacy provided an opportunity for
ordinary people to better themselves in theory, there was limited social
mobility in reality, and it was difficult for poorer, ordinary citizens to
move up the social ladder and become part of the nomenklatura (the
governing administrative class of key Communist Party members).
Stalinism: Impact on Culture

No sphere of society was exempt from Stalinist control, even the creative world of culture, art and
literature. In 1934, Stalins regime used the atmosphere instilled by the terror to establish the Union of
Soviet Writers; this body was instigated by the government to control and monitor the cultural tastes
and preferences of the wider population. It also sought to promote appropriate cultural values that met
with the approval of the communist rulers, and its centrally approved cultural viewpoint became known
as socialist realism, which, in practice, was the only permissible approach to the arts.27
This gave Soviet culture, literature and art an explicitly political role, and this body of writers therefore
had the power and authority to censor or ban any book or literary work that did not have a socialist
spirit or ethos, or if it did not promote the values of this government-imposed doctrine. Various plays
and films were banned or censored, while jazz music was a particular target for government restrictions.
Lenin had permitted experimental and abstract art up until his death in 1924, but Stalin did not approve
of such unorthodox artistic expression as he felt that it did not comply with the values and culture of the
communist society of the Soviet Union. Some writers who would later become dissidents such as
Solzhenitsyn were unable to produce the critical literature of their choice under such conditions.
Impact on Ideology: Stalinism and the Cult of Personality

Despite the Soviet governments claims of its democratic value, the 1936 Constitution was an absolute
sham in comparison to many Western democracies, and the period of the Great Purge proved this, with
no democratic freedoms or civil liberties granted to ordinary citizens faced with such government
repression. Attacks on the individual rights of ordinary citizens operated in conjunction with a key
strategy of Stalins which was the
development of a personality cult, Cult of Personality
with statues, posters and pictures of A countrys leader uses the to create an idealised and heroic image for the wider public.
the Soviet ruler appearing all over the
country, in schools, offices, factories, stations and public squares. As a consequence, no political
opposition of critical political debate was tolerated by the Stalinist regime.
In the early phase of his rule, Stalin had been keen to associate himself with
Lenin who was viewed as a glorious icon of the 1917 revolution. However, as
time progressed, Stalin sought to transfer such a powerful iconic image to
himself, depicting himself as an even more powerful and dominant
personality than his predecessor. This personality-based political agenda
required Soviet citizens to place all their faith in their leader and his wisdom
in political decision-making. The individual liberties of the wider population
were viewed as being expendable and a necessary consequence of having
great powers vested in such a benevolent leader, who claimed to be acting
wisely in the whole countrys best interests at all times. The Constitution of
1936 was therefore a reflection that Stalin had begun to establish himself as a total dictator whom nobody dared
to oppose.28 The ordinary Soviet citizen could not escape such pervading imagery on a daily basis, and
Stalin emerged as a huge figure standing above the whole system.29 Stalins image was everywhere and the
state-run Soviet propaganda machine made him appear fatherly, knowledgeable, indispensable and
heroic.
Soviet history was therefore rewritten to give Stalin a major role in the 1917 revolution as Lenins right-
hand man, when, in fact, his role was limited and somewhat peripheral. During the Stalin era of
dictatorial rule from the mid-1920s onwards, paintings were made of events that never occurred, with
Stalin often appearing in military dress to give the impression of him having a military background
(which he did not have). His image would also often appear holding a book that suggested he was
someone of great learning and knowledge. Such propaganda created a false and exaggerated impression
of his role and importance, with references to and pictures of key rivals such as Trotsky deleted. Stalin
was made out to be indispensable and with superhuman attributes, and, by the mid-1930s, the message
was emphasised to the wider population that all past and future successes of the nation lay with him.
Such deceptive and manipulative government activities were further evidence of the cult of personality
that surrounded Stalin, and, by the mid-1930s, the Soviet ruler was often referred to as the Vozhd, a
Slavonic term meaning leader or boss, with his authority overwhelming and no longer disputed. This
had arguably been the case since 1929 when Stalin had dealt with his various rivals by removing them
from office, but, given such further developments in the mid-1930s and the execution of those same
figures, one historian has commented that:
From 1936 until the outbreak of the Second World War, the personality of Joseph Stalin became the
determining factor in Soviet politics.30
28 James Joll, Europe Since 1870 (4th edn, 1990), Ch. 12, p. 327
The Role and Impact of Stalinist Propaganda
Such a government-imposed vision of arts and culture ultimately resulted in
further limits on freedom of expression within the Soviet Union, and the
repression evident in the purges was extended to the cultural and artistic
world. Stalins personality cult could also be linked into this approach to arts
and culture, with Stalin regularly featured in a positive or heroic manner in
paintings, photos, literature and highly visible public posters. This is evident
in the poster example (see left), which features Stalin appearing to be
knowledgeable. Such examples of state propaganda were widely used to
reinforce Stalins powerful and dominant image, while also strengthening the
levels of order and discipline across wider Soviet society.
It was only during the wartime period of 19411945 that such strict limitations
were relaxed somewhat, and the government encouraged writers, artists and
musicians to express their work in a patriotic style and approach amid the conflict
with Germany. This was primarily to generate popular support for the war effort,
and Stalins military role was further emphasised by the governing regime (see
right). However, once the war was over, the centralised control of Soviet society,
ideology, arts and culture was fully re-imposed by Stalins government.
Overview: Stalins Social Control

This significant level of government control, therefore, impacted on every aspect of life, with key aspects
of society such as culture, art and religion all closely monitored, regulated and ultimately controlled by
the authoritarian Stalinist state. An independent and free civil society with associated freedoms was
non-existent. This style of governance stemmed from the structure of the centralised political system and
the mentality that existed at the very top levels of government that sought to control ordinary people
and limit their potential to cause civil unrest or create opposition to the existing communist system.
Alongside the more brutal purges and terror of the mid-1930s, such an approach to social policy ensured
that the Soviet Union under Stalins rule was generally an ordered and disciplined society where people
were fearful of government and knew their place, with a strong tendency to obey and follow orders from
the countrys political leaders.
Task 7
Summarise the key positives and negatives of Stalins approach to social and cultural policies
for the wider Soviet population.
Positives of Stalins approach to social and Negatives of Stalins approach to social and
cultural policies cultural policies
What was Stalinism and its overall impact on the USSR in this period?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Understand what Stalinism was and Stalins Russia by 1941
its overall impact on the USSR in
this period
By the time that Hitlers German army invaded the Soviet Union in mid-1941, Stalin arguably dominated
every aspect of life within the communist country. Indeed, in the early 1940s, Stalins dominance was
such that other Soviet political institutions were powerless by comparison, and the term Stalinism
became firmly attached to his distinct style of dominant political rule. This term developed to mean a
specific version of MarxismLeninism, with a progressively more extreme authoritarian and autocratic
manner fuelled by a personality cult as well as a powerful bureaucratic structure that was a vital tool in
the organisation and running of this vast communist state. The term Stalinism has often been referred
to as an ideology in its own right and contained the following key features:
Summary Key Features of Stalinism

A personality cult one powerful autocratic leader
A centralised government bureaucracy
Centralised economic management
Extensive use of propaganda
State repression and coercion across society
No democracy or political dissent a one-party state
A strict control of cultural and social expression
This style of rule that had developed by the early 1940s was not dissimilar and
arguably more repressive than the Tsarist regime that the Bolsheviks had
overthrown. There was some irony in this, and some historians have described
Stalin as behaving like a Red Tsar. It is also ironic how both Stalin and Lenin were
promoted as godlike figures by a communist regime that attacked organised
religion and was militantly atheist. During Stalins period in power, the political
system became increasingly totalitarian, and his regime inflicted increasingly
brutal methods of social control on the wider Soviet population, with all aspects of
social and economic life controlled by the state and tens of millions of people killed
or imprisoned by the government. Actual figures of Soviet citizens killed by Stalins
regime (up until his death in 1953) are unclear and vary from 10 million to 100
million, with the number open to debate due to the secretive nature of the communist system of
government. The negative potential of this style of rule has been summarised as follows:
The Cold War

A period of political tension and military rivalry between the USA and the Soviet Union between 1945 and 1990. However, such a conflict stoppe
The existence of powerful coercive apparatus, and one leader, claiming the mantle of authority, is a dangerous
combination.31
This level of repression was at its height during the 1930s and the purges but it continued throughout
Stalins rule to varying degrees of extremity. However, despite this overwhelming degree of personal
Stalinist rule that created such negative social and political implications for ordinary Soviet citizens, in
economic terms under Stalins stewardship the Soviet Union had made rapid progress in industrial and
military terms from the mid-1920s onwards to become one of only two global superpowers by the late
1940s. It had rapidly industrialised during the 1930s and then emerged triumphant from a gruelling and
sustained four-year military conflict with Germany from 1941, with Stalins strong leadership a
significant factor in the eventual success of The Great Patriotic War.
Stalinism and its Legacy for the Soviet Union

At the end of World War II in 1945, the Soviet nation subsequently embarked on what would be a
prolonged and destructive Cold War with the West from the mid to late 1940s onwards, as part of an
intensive battle for international global supremacy. As was the case in the 1920s and 1930s, Stalin was at
the heart of all such domestic and international policy developments during this era, both positive and
negative. However, it was this degree of personal dominance, alongside the terror and fear that his
regime instilled across the Soviet population up to 1941 and beyond, which led to a backlash against his
style of government after his death.
Stalins eventual successor emerged from the Soviet political hierarchy in autumn 1953 in the form of
Nikita Khrushchev. As a result of a developing mood that sought to revise and review the political style
and system established by Stalin, by the mid-1950s the new leader had clearly sought to address the
excesses of Stalins period of rule and prevent them from happening again.
The focus on the cult of personality, the scale of terror and repression and the overall atmosphere of fear
within society were all identified as aspects of Stalinist rule that needed to be reduced or eliminated
within Soviet society. The use of political trials was halted and greater openness within Soviet society
encouraged, although this was still very restricted by the standards of Western liberal democracies.
However, there was evidence that individuals and institutions, e.g. organised religion, had survived his
purges and repression and had not been totally suppressed in their views that did not conform to the
Stalinist orthodoxy. This desire to review and reject some of Stalins most brutal tactics and methods
would suggest that his role was not as dominant as some believed when he was in power, and the actual
extent of Stalins power has been the source of much debate among historians.
This process of rejecting the severe nature of Stalins

rule and seeking to develop a less repressive political De-Stalinization
system became known as de-Stalinisation. The elimination and reduction of Stalins influence in Soviet society.
Khrushchev and his allies were often referred to as revisionists who sought to revise and reinterpret
Stalins policies, arguing that Stalins version of communism placed too much focus on an individual
authoritarian leader and had moved away from the collective principles of communism.
Over the years that have followed, various historians, both within and outside the Soviet Union, have
disagreed over whose version of communism was the most authentic or most aligned with the writings
of Karl Marx, and whether Stalins style of rule was consistent with original communist theory. While
Stalin has received some support for his tactics and political approach within the communist movement,
many of those critical of Stalin and his methods of government have been described as historical

revisionists, who have disagreed with the official and often more supportive interpretation of Stalins
period of rule as communicated by the communist authorities. Such revisionists have argued that
Stalins style of communism was actually a distortion of the original aims and principles of Marxism.
Historical Revisionism
The revision of an accepted or long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, often involving a revision of key historical events and movements.
However, despite these attempts by Khrushchev and others from the mid-1950s onwards to distance
themselves from the most extreme forms of totalitarian rule that existed under Stalin, Soviet citizens
continued to have few individual liberties after his death, with a generally poor quality of life for most
ordinary people within a political system that featured no democratic choice and which was dominated
by a single political party the communists. This was Stalins ultimate legacy for the country, namely
that he created a political structure that was primarily established between the years of 1924 and 1941,
and which significantly shaped the way the Soviet Union was governed for the remainder of the
countrys existence until 1991.
A further dimension of his legacy was the creation of an extremely centralised and repressive framework
of government, and this influenced the Soviet leaders that followed Stalins rule from the mid-1950s
onwards, all of whom generally embraced his authoritarian political approach to varying degrees of
extremity. In practical terms, this meant that, in the long term, the countrys government continued to
function in an autocratic, centralised and dictatorial manner, with a lack of democracy, the suppression
of the wider population and a glaring absence of basic civil and political freedoms. Stalins initial period
of rule between 1924 and 1941 therefore formed the foundations for the type of communist government
that would prevail in the Soviet Union for much of the remainder of the twentieth century.

1.In what ways were Stalins policies towards education, culture, arts and literature more conservative
than revolutionary? Provide examples of how they differed from Lenins.
2. Summarise the cult of personality that was a feature of Stalins leadership.
3. Provide an example of how Stalins social control impacted on peoples everyday lives and activities.
4. What were some of the key ideological and practical features of Stalinism?
Summary Overview: How did Stalinism impact on the Soviet Unions key social and cultural policies?
Stalins Control of Key Social and Cultural Policies
Summary Overview: How did Stalinism impact on the Soviet Unions key social and cultural policies?
(Answers)
Exploitation of the
patriotic expression of
culture, literature and
art during World War
Two
Control of arts and Strict family life but
literature via conditions relaxed during
Socialist Realism war
Improvements in
education to
enforce social
Legal restrictions on discipline and
Stalins Key Social and Cultural Policies
divorce, abortion and obedience
homosexuality
Censorship of artists, Control and

literature, music and persecution of
films organised religion
Evidence that Stalin was a Red Tsar
Yes, Stalin was a Red Tsar
Evidence that Stalin was a Red Tsar (Answers)
Stalin maintained a
dictatorial system of
government for almost 30
years and did not face re- He adopted an autocratic
He used significant
election style of rule that focused
repression and Secret
on his own personality
Police like the Tsar
Yes, Stalin was a Red Tsar Stalin centralised

There were no political power to
democratic rights for an extreme degree
ordinary people (as
under the Tsarist
regime)
He collectivised
Aristocratic rule was agriculture and
replaced by government industrialised the
dominated by a Communist country using brutal
Party elite and ruthless methods
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the USSR on the Eve of War in 1941
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Develop a full understanding of the Stalins Russia by 1941
strengths and weaknesses of the USSR
on the eve of war in 1941
After the revolutionary events of 1917, the newly formed USSR (Soviet Union) was not recognised by the
capitalist powers of the USA and Western Europe, and it was excluded from the League of Nations that
was established after World War I. Such international isolation was based on the hostile feelings of the
Western powers, who viewed the Soviet Union as an ideological and military threat, with its armies seen
as advancing the cause of communist revolution around the world. This external hostility would result
in an isolated foreign policy for the much of the 1920s in particular, under the leadership of both Lenin
and Stalin.
For their part, Soviet leaders condemned the League of Nations as a capitalist association aimed at
destroying the Soviet Union. Its ideas of collective security were seen by Stalin as a cover for conspiracy,
primarily organised by Britain and France. However, as the Five Year Plans gradually increased the
Soviet Unions economic strength, the country sought to use this growing domestic strength as a
platform for a more prominent role in foreign affairs. This was particularly important as tensions grew
across Europe in the 1930s and Stalin was conscious of the dangers of the country being isolated if a war
erupted.
Summary of Soviet Foreign Policy in the 1920s and 30s:

In 1922 the USSR signed a treaty with Germany, a country that had been broken and weakened by
the events of World War I. In 1924 a trade agreement was signed with the British government.
However, in 1933 Hitler came to power in Germany and vowed to destroy communism. Stalin felt
threatened by this development and appeared fearful of Hitlers growing power. He therefore looked
for help from Western European nations in dealing with Hitler.
In 1934 Stalin joined the League of Nations and supported a policy of collective security, trying to
enlist Britain and France against the menace of Germany. The Soviet Union had previously been
excluded from this organisation due to its revolutionary nature.
In 1935, Stalin and the USSR signed a defensive pact with France, aimed at protecting Czechoslovakia
from possible German invasion.
In 1936 Stalin was alarmed when Germany, Italy and Japan formed an anti-communist alliance known as
the Anti-Comintern Pact, and this shaped his moves towards developing the third Five Year Plan and
its focus on preparations for war. At this time, Britain saw Hitler as less of a threat than Stalin, and the
appeasers such as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought they could reach an agreement with
Germany, as opposed to the ideological enemy of communism. The policy of appeasement was adopted
because some European politicians believed that they could make a compromise with Hitlers ambitions
to expand Germany in order to prevent a wider European war. It would ultimately prove to be a failure
when World War II erupted in 1939.
The Countdown to World War II
In September 1938, Britain and France agreed at the Munich Conference to give Hitler part of the Czech
Sudetenland. This was a controversial compromise on the part of the British and French, and the Soviet
Union was excluded from the conference. This made Stalin realise that the nations of Western Europe
were extremely reluctant to fight Hitler, and in such circumstances he therefore decided to make his own
deal. Stalin was ultimately motivated by the firm belief that the Western diplomats and politicians had
sacrificed Czechoslovakia at Munich to a German aggressor in order to protect their own national
interests and that, in such circumstances, his own country was vulnerable to a future German attack.
This fear of German expansion was confirmed to Stalin when the rest of Czechoslovakia was absorbed by
Germany in March 1939, a development which made European war even more likely.
As a further result of such diplomatic processes, in August 1939

Hitler and Stalin signed the MolotovRibbentrop Non-Aggression
Pact (named after the Foreign Ministers of each nation). The two
countries agreed to the destruction of Poland by attacking together
and carving the country between them. This NaziSoviet Pact was
very much a marriage of convenience for both nations and a great
surprise to many as the two dictators had previously appeared
hostile to each other and represented opposing ideologies of
communism (Soviet Union) and National Socialism (Germany). The
satirical Polish cartoon (left) shows the German Foreign Minister
Ribbentrop bowing down before Stalin to show his newly found
admiration for his former enemy.
Following Munich Stalin no longer trusted the Western powers and felt that such a pact was in his
countrys best interests as they were not ready to take on the military might of Hitlers Germany.
Although he knew that Hitler had ambitions to extend his territories further into Eastern Europe, Stalin
was willing to agree to this deal which was effectively a marriage of convenience for both sides. It
allowed Germany to focus on its initial attack on France to the west in the autumn of 1939, while
allowing the Soviet Union further valuable time to prepare for the developing European conflict that
Stalin suspected his country would eventually get more significantly sucked into at some future point.
Stalin had spent much of the 1930s securing his own position on a domestic level, and by the end of the
decade he knew that his position was under threat from international events. If he was defeated in a
European war then his position at home would become very vulnerable and he would struggle to
maintain his own personal grip on power. He therefore sought to do his utmost to ensure that both he
and his country could survive any military attack. This was why he made a deal with Hitler yet then
continued to prepare for an eventual conflict.
A famous cartoon by the British cartoonist David Low in September 1939 entitled Rendezvous, depicted the traditional enemies Hitler
You can view the cartoon by clicking on the following link:
Stalin Hitler National Socialist (Nazi)
Communist
The Soviet Union and the Outbreak of World War II

On 1st September 1939, Poland was attacked by Germany from the west and the Soviet Union from the
east. On the 3rd, Britain and France declared war on Germany (having upheld their previous pledge to
protect Poland), and the Second World War began. Poland faced invasion from both sides, and during
this early phase of the war Stalins troops barbarically executed up to 22,000 imprisoned Polish officers in
a notorious massacre in the Russian forests of Katyn (during the spring of 1940), but Stalin blamed
German forces for this atrocity and the truth only emerged decades later.
Stalin ultimately wanted a geographical barrier of land to protect the USSR

from any future invasion. In November 1939, the Red Army invaded Finland
and was met with strong resistance, taking until March 1940 for victory to be
secured in the initial period of conflict often referred to as the Winter War.
These initial military struggles reflected the fact that the strength of Stalins
army had been badly weakened by the purges of the 1930s, which had led to
the removal of a large number of experienced figures from the Soviet
military. This ultimately suggests that the country was not as well prepared
for war as it could have been, despite the almost two-year period it had to
prepare following the NaziSoviet Pact being signed in autumn 1939.
During 1940, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (the Baltic States) were invaded by Soviet forces and formally
annexed, providing Stalin with a further buffer zone of security against a possible invasion, although
Stalin still remained suspicious of Germany. This became evident on 22nd June 1941 when, having made
significant inroads into France at the western front, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the code
word for the German invasion of the Soviet Union. This development saw Hitler abandon the 1939 Nazi
Soviet Pact and open up an eastern front by attacking his former ally.
War on the Eastern Front German Invasion (1941)

To many observers, this development was not a great shock as the two countries had been ideological
and political enemies up until 1939, and Hitler and Stalin clearly did not trust each other. However, the
Germans appeared to have caught Stalin by surprise, despite intelligence warnings from the USA| and
Britain over previous months. According to one historian, this apparent surprise at such an invasion
reflected:
A characteristic defect of the totalitarian system: it is very bad at assimilating and evaluating
information unwelcome to the leadership.32
Having therefore spent the 1930s trying to secure his position at the helm of the Soviet Union amid an
atmosphere of social upheaval and domestic repression, Stalin now found both his position and his
countrys overall security under severe threat from an extremely dangerous external source:
subjected to the ultimate test of invasion by the most powerful, barbarous, and efficient military
machine ever seen in European history33
Stalin had ultimately misjudged the development of the European war since 1939 and had not
anticipated Germanys ruthlessly quick encroachment into France, and this raised questions as to how
prepared the country was when Germany launched its invasion:
Stalin personally made the crucial assumptions underlying Soviet military conduct in the summer of
1941. He had banked on a long war in the West and was unprepared for the rapid defeat of France
[he] hoped for a longer and more fruitful alliance with the Fuhrer. 34
Stalins ability to survive this earlier than expected

Nazi onslaught would now be tested in often
extreme wartime circumstances, and, at this point in
time, it was unclear whether his regime would
survive such an overwhelming external military
attack, with the invading Germany army destroying
various Russian towns and cities in its wake (see left).
Stalins powerful and dominant leadership was now
required to operate as ruthlessly and efficiently in a
military and international context, as it had done in
a domestic context during much of the 1920s and
1930s.
The Soviet war

Total War
A sustained military conflict involving the mobilisation of all available national resources and wider population. effort generally
improved as the
war progressed, and it was far more effective and better organised than the countrys shambolic military
experiences of World War I. This level of industrial, economic and military performance during a total
war put communism in a favourable light in comparison to the Tsarism that had taken the country into
the earlier world war. The third Five Year Plan, with its focus on the possibility of war, therefore deserves
some credit for this level of planning, and the preparations made during the late 1930s for the likelihood
of a future European war were vital to the country surviving and emerging victorious from this
sustained military conflict between 1941 and 1945.
Yes, the Soviet Union was prepared for war in 1941:
Stalins regime had broadly prepared the country well for the outbreak of war in the
following ways:
The third Five Year Plan (planning a war economy) and the earlier Five
Year Plans had significantly developed the countrys heavy industry
and armaments.
The NaziSoviet Pact of 1939 had given the country a further 18 months
to prepare for a potential invasion by Germany, with significant further
training of the army taking place (and the countrys military
performance steadily improved from 1941 onwards).
There was proposed use of partisan armed forces to bolster the regular
army and women and young people were put in crucial wartime
industrial jobs.
There was ongoing use of government propaganda, specifically for the
war effort (see posters right) promoted a siege mentality across Soviet
society that boosted morale during the war.
There was strong leadership from key individuals, e.g. Stalin and
individual military officers such as Zhukov.
The nature of the countrys rapid industrialisation during the 1920s and
1930s meant that the Soviet people were used to an atmosphere of
relative hardship that would be heightened during the war from 1941
onwards.
According to pro-Soviet commentators and historians,
collectivisation instilled a greater degree of unity across
the country which ultimately boosted the war effort. All
peasants were connected to collective farms by the time of
the German invasion in 1941, and this policy also allowed
the government to gain control of the countryside and the
countrys agricultural resources, which are vital sources of
supplies during any conflict.
The relocation of key factories and industrial centres away
from the western front to the remote Urals in the east of
the country limited their likelihood of destruction and
strengthened the countrys national security in the
process. Patriotic Soviet propaganda poster declares Defend Moscow!
The strict and repressive approach of Stalinist rule had created an

ordered and disciplined society that was broadly prepared for the
rigours of a prolonged total war, with the country proving to be
resilient in response to the German invasion.
No, the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in 1941:
However, there remained some negative factors that appeared to undermine

the countrys position when German forces invaded in 1941, which indicated some significant wartime
dangers ahead:
Many of the senior ranks of the army had been purged during the 1930s, and this would have a
negative effect on the countrys military performance in the early stages of the war in particular.
In 1941, the German army appeared to be far superior, and the Soviet Union still lacked significant
allies, although this situation would change as the war progressed.
Many skilled workers and industrialists had also been purged during the 1930s, and this impacted
on the countrys industrial capacity.
The policy of dekulakisation from the late 1920s onwards had weakened parts of the agricultural
sector, and, in 1941, the countrys overall rate of agricultural output remained inefficient and had
still not returned to the levels of 1928.
Collectivisation had been forced on many peasants against their will, creating significant levels of
distrust and hostility towards Stalins regime from ordinary citizens. Many continued to feel it had
not delivered any clear improvements in production or living standards, and there was a broad lack
of loyalty to Stalins leadership, summarised as follows:
The leadership which directed their (wartime) efforts had only just inflicted horrifying sufferings on those
same peoples.35
Wartime morale was therefore initially weak and some Soviet citizens initially welcomed the German
invaders as having the potential to free them from Stalinist repression, although this generally faded
as the war progressed.
Prominent Soviet historians, such as Robert Conquest, have estimated that approximately eight
million people were held in gulags or prison camps before the war.
Too much emphasis and authority was placed in Stalins hands and there appeared to be a lack of
competent political and military figures that could have power delegated to them during the
difficult challenges of a wartime environment.
Task 8
Task: Soviet Preparation for World War II
Using the above arguments, prepare an essay plan addressing how well
prepared the Soviet Union was when Germany invaded in 1941. Try to
prioritise and rank the most important arguments that suggested the country
was prepared, and then prioritise the most powerful arguments that
suggested it wasnt. Which viewpoint is the strongest overall?
It could be concluded that as the country survived the war it was ultimately
prepared for the conflict that developed, although the support from foreign
allies was arguably the crucial factor that compensated for some of the Soviet
Unions own internal failings.

1. Why were the Soviet Union and Germany originally enemies before 1939?
2. What were Stalins motives in becoming an ally of Hitlers Germany in 1939 and why did this
alliance not last?
3. How well prepared was the Soviet Union for the German invasion in 1941?
4. What was the overall impact of Stalins rule on the Soviet Union by 1941?
Summary Overview: How did Stalin Consolidate Power from 1924 to 1953?
How Stalin Consolidated Power
Summary Overview: How did Stalin Consolidate Power from 1924 to 1953? (Answers)
Focused on Socialism
in one country rather
The Five Year than worldwide Terror and
Plans strengthened revolution repression and use
industry and of Secret Police
economic position
Industrial and economic

strength led to improved
military performance in
No tolerance of
World War Two
dissent or democratic How Stalin Consolidated Power
developments
Improved foreign
Removed and isolated all
relations and trading
rival figures for power,
links with the West
e.g. Trotsky
Summary Overview: What were the key features of Stalinism between 1924 and 1941?
(19241941)
The Key Features of Stalinism
Summary Overview: What were the key features of Stalinism between 1924 and 1941? (Answers)
A centralised government bureaucracy

Centralised economic management
A personality cult and an autocratic leader
Lack of democracy a one-party state

(19241941)
The Key Features of Stalinism
Extensive use of propaganda
State repression and coercion across wider society

Cultural and social expression strictly controlled
Springboard 4: Stalins Russia in 1941
Discussion Points
1. What factors explain why Stalin had become such a dominant figure in the Soviet Union
by 1941?
2. How did the Five Year Plans and the terror strengthen Stalins own personal power base?
3. In what ways did Stalinism impact on the Soviet Union by the early 1940s?
4. How did Stalinism shape and influence culture, society and political ideology in the Soviet Union
between 1924 and 1941?
5. How did Stalin justify his alliance with Hitler in 1939?
6. How well prepared was the Soviet Union for the German invasion in 1941?
7. What were Stalins key legacies for the Soviet Union by the time of the German invasion in 1941?
8. What factors allowed the Soviet Union to develop as a superpower as the 1940s progressed?
?
Using the previous sections notes, try to answer the following essay question:
Using the source extracts below and your own knowledge, assess how dominant and damaging
Stalins role in the governance of the Soviet Union was between 1924 and 1941. (24 marks)
Source A:
The existence of powerful coercive apparatus, and one leader, claiming the mantle of authority, is a dangerous
combination.
Source: Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 4, p. 58
Source B:
From 1936 until the outbreak of the Second World War, the personality of Joseph Stalin became the
determining factor in Soviet politics.
Source: L Kochan and R Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia (1962), Ch. 18, p. 381
Source C:
A characteristic defect of the totalitarian system: it is very bad at assimilating and evaluating information
unwelcome to the leadership.
Source: Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 10, p. 269
Following an introductory section that addresses the question, students should assess to what extent
Stalin dominated the Soviet Union between 1924 and 1941. Evidence must therefore be provided in
response to the question, on the one hand arguing that Stalin was dominant, but on the other hand
arguing that he was not as dominant or powerful as some have suggested. While making such analysis,
students should assess whether Stalins role as Soviet leader was damaging or not.
Evidence that Stalin was dominant:

1 The cult of personality and its supporting propaganda were steadily developed throughout Stalins
rule.
2 Soviet government was centralised and dominated by Stalin and a small number of ministers who
he appointed and controlled.
3 Dissent and opposition was crushed, particularly during the purges and terror of the 1930s, with
much of the opposition imagined by Stalin.
4 Culture, literature and political freedoms were all brought under the control of Stalins regime.
5 Stalin removed all significant political rivals from office from the late 1920s onwards.
6 By 1941, Stalin was viewed by most Soviet citizens as the key figure for the countrys war effort.
7 All of these factors could be seen as damaging in promoting an all-powerful leader at the expense of
individual freedoms for ordinary citizens, alongside a dysfunctional political structure and the
failure to develop a free and democratic society.
8 However, from a more positive angle, Stalins dominance could be viewed as a sign of strong
leadership that was good for the Soviet Union.
Evidence that Stalin was not dominant:
1 There was a power struggle in the mid to late 1920s, and Stalin was by no means guaranteed to
succeed Lenin.
2 The purges of the mid-1930s were arguably a reflection of public unrest and opposition to Stalins
leadership.
3 Hitlers rise to power in Germany meant that Stalin feared for his position from the mid-1930s
onwards.
4 Stalins domestic position within the Soviet Union was weakened by a lack of international allies.
5 Stalin relied on other key ministers such as Beria (during purges) and military figures such as
Zhukov.
6 Stalin relied on the government bureaucracy to get policies such as collectivisation and the Five Year
Plans to operate effectively.
7 All of these factors could be seen as evidence that Stalin did not always get his own way and was not
completely dominant. This could be viewed as a positive thing in terms of pluralistic attempts to
oppose and challenge his style of rule from 1924 onwards.
8 However, any failures by Stalin to effectively lead and control the countrys government could be
seen as negative and dangerous by those who favour strong and powerful leadership as the most
effective means of getting things done.
Analysis: The various points and arguments on either side of the question need to be addressed and
analysed. In offering such analysis, the answer should develop judgement as to whether some points and
arguments are more significant than others, and whether there is more weight to one viewpoint over
another. A key aspect of the question to address is whether Stalin was more dominant in some parts of
the period between 1924 and 1941 than in others, and whether his dominance got stronger or weaker
over time. Whether such dominance was a good or bad thing should also be addressed. The key focus
should be to decide whether the arguments that Stalin was dominant outweigh the arguments that he
was not, and whether the assumption in the question that he was dominant can be challenged. Sources
should be regularly referred to and quoted in support of own knowledge.
a judgement on the extent to which Stalin actually dominated the Soviet Union between 1924 and 1941,
and whether he was more dominant in some periods than others.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Stalin as Soviet Leader (19241941)
Strengths Weaknesses
Like Lenin, he had dictatorial
tendencies and suppressed
democracy and civil liberties to an
He built up the countrys political
even greater extent, ruthlessly
strength and brought the Soviet
removing all opposition and potential
Union out of international isolation
rivals, including Trotsky, to establish a
from the 1930s onwards.
brutal dictatorship and a one-party
Stalin came to dominate the political
state.
system of the Soviet Union and
Political Stalin distorted the truth and rewrote
provide strong leadership.
past events with his use of
By the time Germany invaded in 1941,
propaganda.
the Soviet Union was establishing
Stalin presided over worsening
itself as an increasingly powerful
relations with the capitalist West and
nation, and this position would grow
pushed the Soviet Union into a
after World War II.
damaging Cold War, resulting in
almost 40 years of international
tension from the 1940s onwards.
Stalin revolutionised Soviet industry Economic and industrial growth was
by the Five Year Plans, making it a unevenly spread and many citizens
much stronger economic and continued to live in poverty and had a
Economic industrial nation. poor lifestyle.
Stalin presided over a period of The country would have struggled to
steady and sustained economic survive World War II without foreign
growth for the Soviet Union. economic aid.
Stalin led the Soviet Union through
tremendous social hardship in the Stalin terrorised Soviet society with
1930s to ultimate victory in the Great secret police, mass executions and
Patriotic War (World War II). expulsions from the country.
Social He led the Soviet Union out of post- Key elements of civil society such as
revolution turmoil but he created a organised religion, trade unions and
generally ordered and disciplined political groups were severely
society and stabilised the country repressed.
after Lenins death.
Revision Summaries
How did Stalin Consolidate Power between 1924 and
1953?
Highlight the key reasons, events and tactics that allowed Stalin to strengthen his grip on
power from 1924 onwards.
1. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
2. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
3. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
4. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
5. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
6. .................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................
How did Stalin consolidate and extend his power between 1924 and
1941? (Answers)
Highlight the key reasons, events and tactics that allowed Stalin to strengthen his grip on
power from 1924 onwards.
1. Stalin outmanoeuvred his rivals to seize and consolidate the leadership of the country from 1924
onwards. In later years, his key rivals were ruthlessly removed from office and then executed by
the Soviet state.
2. Stalin developed a cult of personality that focused on his own individual role and abilities, with
little or no acknowledgement of other individuals or officials within government.
3. Stalin established an autocratic and dictatorial system of government that was similar to the
previous Tsarist regime in the lack of democracy and civil liberties experienced by individual
citizens. Some have subsequently described Stalin as behaving like a Red Tsar.
4. Stalins Five Year Plans between 1928 and 1941 led to significant and rapid progress across Soviet
industry and the economy in general. These plans created considerable social hardship but were
ultimately successful in achieving the necessary growth for the country, and this strengthened
Stalins political position.
5. From the mid-1930s onwards Stalin instigated a wave of purges against those that he perceived
were against him or his regime. Many of those persecuted or purged were key rivals and the
allegations against them were exaggerated or fabricated. This period became known as the terror,
with much of the population fearful of Stalins regime and the powers of his secret police.
6. Stalins position was greatly boosted by his preparations and planning for the outbreak of World
War II. Although at times his regime was under intense pressure from the invading German army
from 1941 onwards, the countrys success in fighting off the German invasion was arguably due to
Stalins leadership and the extra time to prepare that was secured by the signing of the 1939 Nazi
Soviet Pact. The nations eventual survival and victory during the Great Patriotic War led to the
Soviet Union emerging from the war as one of only two global superpowers.
Stalins Rule: Key Events in the Soviet Union (19241941)
Match the event with the correct date.
1924 The purges begin.
1928 Stalin introduces a new Constitution for the Soviet Union

purges are developed even further (known as the terror).
1932 Purges come to an end. The third Five Year Plan begins.
1934 Stalin annexes the Baltic States.
1936 Stalin launches the first Five Year Plan.
1937 Hitler attacks the Soviet Union. Stalin changes sides to

support Britain and the USA in the Grand Alliance.
1938 Stalin launches the second Five Year Plan.
1939 Collectivisation is almost complete.
1940 Stalin succeeds Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union.
1941 Stalin enters World War II in alliance with Hitlers Germany.
Stalins Rule: Key Events in the Soviet Union (19241941)
(Revision Exercise Answers)
1924 Stalin succeeds Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union.

1928 Stalin launches the First Five Year Plan.
1933 Stalin launches the Second Five Year Plan.
1934 The purges begin.
Stalin introduces a new Constitution for the Soviet Union purges are
1936
developed even further (known as The Terror).
1937 Collectivisation is almost complete.
1938 Purges come to an end. Third Five Year Plan begins.
1939 Stalin enters World War Two in alliance with Hitlers Germany.
1940 Stalin annexes the Baltic States.
Hitler attacks the Soviet Union. Stalin changes sides to support Britain
1941
and the USA in the Grand Alliance.
Revision Quiz on Stalin and the Soviet Union (19241941)
1. Name three of Stalins key rivals to succeed Lenin in 1924.
1. ......................................................................... 3. ..................................................................................(3)
2. ..........................................................................
2. What policy of Lenins did Stalin seek to abolish on taking power?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
3. Which social group did Stalin identify as a source of Russias economic and social problems?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
4. What did Stalin propose to do to Russian agriculture in order to make it more efficient?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
5. How many Five Year Plans did Stalin establish throughout the 1920s and 1930s?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
6. In which year did Stalin introduce a Constitution for the Soviet Union?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
7. Which years saw the height of Stalins purges in the 1930s?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
8. Who were the main targets of Stalins purges in the 1930s?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
9. What was the name of the pact that united Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
10 Why did Hitler invade the Soviet Union in 1941?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
11. What was the main difference in Russias military performance in 1941 compared to 1914?
..........................................................................................................................................................................(1)
12. Explain how the term Red Tsar can be applied to both Lenin and Stalin.
..............................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................(2)
Total: /15
Quiz on Stalin and the Soviet Union (19241941) (Answers)
1. Name three of Stalins key rivals to succeed Lenin in 1924.

Select any from Trotsky, Zinoviev, Rykov, Bukharin and Kamenev.
2. What policy of Lenins did Stalin seek to abolish on taking power?

New Economic Policy (NEP)
3. Which social group did Stalin identify as a source of Russias economic and social problems?
Kulaks
4. What did Stalin propose to do to Russian agriculture in order to make it more efficient?
Collectivisation
5. How many Five Year Plans did Stalin establish throughout the 1920s and 1930s?
Three
6. In which year did Stalin introduce a Constitution for the Soviet Union?
1936
7. Which years saw the height of Stalins purges in the 1930s?

19361938
8. Who were the main targets of Stalins purges in the 1930s?

Old Bolsheviks / Trotskyites, rival Communist Party members, army officers, ordinary people perceived as
threats
9. What was the name of the pact that united Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939?
MolotovRibbentrop Pact
10. Why did Hitler invade the Soviet Union in 1941?

Hitler wanted to knock the Soviet Union out of the war in order to fully focus on the Western Front, although
he under-estimated Soviet resilience.
11. What was the main difference in Russias military performance in 1941 compared to 1914?
It was much improved and sustained throughout the War. Greater overall efficiency and improved wartime
production led to the creation of a war economy.
12. Explain how the term Red Tsar can be applied to Stalin.
Because he assumed dictatorial and autocratic powers similar to the Tsarist regime.
Answers to tasks
Task 1
Summarise the key positives and negatives of the development of communism in the Soviet Union up
until the early 1920s.
The development of communism in the Soviet Union

Positives Negatives
There had been a successful communist The country was too vast and diverse to have
revolution in 1917. communism imposed on it.
Key communist figures such as Lenin were According to strict Marxist theory the country
running the countrys government. was not industrialised enough for communism to
work, with the backward agricultural system its
main industry.
The country had been reasonably stabilised after Most other nations were hostile to communism
World War One and a civil war. and the Soviet Union was isolated in international
affairs.
A powerful and well-organised Red Army The communist regime had been forced to dilute
imposed order and discipline across society. its principles and adopt the semi-capitalist NEP
in 1921.
Task 2
Summarise the differences and similarities between the key policies and ideas of Stalin and Trotsky.
Issue Stalin Trotsky
Stalin wanted to maintain Envisaged a less bureaucratic form
socialism in one country, of communism, with more genuine
Economic policy
supporting rapid industrialisation, freedoms and democratic control
and rejected the NEP. for the working classes.
Stalin acknowledged the Trotsky also accepted that his
inevitability of social upheaval in revolutionary policies would have
Social impact of policies
his drive towards rapid led to social upheaval and hardship
industrialisation. for ordinary citizens.
Stalins approach to socialism on Trotsky wanted to export
Interpretation of one country stressed the need to revolution to other countries in
communism secure communism in the Soviet order to create allies for an
Union as a priority. otherwise isolated Soviet state.
Stalin was relatively dull and was Trotsky was not as focused as Stalin
Personality and referred to as a grey blur. He was in pursuing the Soviet leadership.
leadership qualities however extremely ambitious and He had more charisma and was a
politically ruthless. great orator and military leader.
Task 3
Summarise the key positives and negatives of the Five Year Plans.
Five Year Plans (19281941)

Positives of the first Five Year Plan (1928 Negatives of the first Five Year Plan (1928
1932) 1932)
This plan accelerated the rate of industrial and Communist ideology was imposed in a brutal
economic growth, and helped the country to manner across the country, e.g. dekulakisation,
rapidly develop from a backward agricultural while also limiting individual freedoms.
nation into an industrial powerhouse.
This first plan achieved high levels of growth in Not all parts of the country benefited or were
comparison to the capitalist West (struggling after affected in the same way, and many of the targets
the 1929 Wall Street Crash), and everyday pay of the first plan were missed.
increased.
Positives of the second Five Year Plan (1933 Negatives of the second Five Year Plan
1937) (19331937)
There was a sustained focus on improving the The range and quality of goods produced were
range and quality of consumer goods within generally poor and living conditions remained
Soviet society harsh.
There was some clear evidence of improved There were problems with accessing and
transport and communication links as result of supplying raw materials to industry, and this
the second plan. impacted on goods provided to the wider
population.
Positives of the third Five Year Plan Negatives of the third Five Year Plan (1938
(19381941) 1941)
This plan helped the Soviet Union prepare for Individual freedoms were further limited by this
and endure the trials of World War II and become determined focus on war production.
a superpower afterwards.
The drive towards rearmament created significant The Soviet Union still had to rely on foreign
numbers of jobs for ordinary Soviet citizens. support to ensure that it survived the total war
from 1941 to 1945, suggesting that the third plan
was not totally responsible for the countrys
ultimately successful war effort.
Task 4
How successful were Stalins industrial and economic policies in the 1930s? (Answers)
Positive Evidence Successful

The Five Year Plans were introduced into an environment of economic failure in the late 1920s. Stalin
sought to replace Lenins capitalist experiment of the New Economic Policy (NEP) with a more
centralised economic policy that would industrialise the Soviet Union and which was closer to the
principles of communism.
Stalin used the Five Year Plans to promote collectivisation and to equalize how the resources of the
countrys land were shared out. In doing so he attacked the position of the wealthy farmers, the
kulaks, a group who he believed represented inequality and who had benefited from the
liberalisation and capitalist reforms of the New Economic Policy.
Visible and positive long-term products of the Five Year Plans included the development of the steel
city of Magnitogorsk in the Urals as well as the hydroelectric power station at Dnepropetrovsk in the
Ukraine.
The Soviet Union in general experienced a transformation from a predominantly rural society into a
much more industrialised one, on a scale that no previous government had ever been able to achieve.
The second Five Year Plan (19331937) saw attempts to improve the range of consumer goods,
develop improved transport links and enhance general standards of living after the initial hardships
of the first plan.
The third Five Year Plan (19381941) in particular was focused on preparation for likely war and the
creation of a war economy. Stalin fully expected an attack at some time from Hitlers Germany, and
when it came in 1941 the USSR survived largely due to her enhanced industrial and economic power.
As a result of Stalins policies, agriculture ultimately improved, which in turn boosted the overall
process of industrialisation. In 1935 food rationing ended; by 1937 99% of the land had been
collectivised.
Negative Evidence Not Successful

Agricultural policies were initially disastrous for food production, causing significant social unrest,
disorder and famine. This was particularly evident in rural areas that felt the impact of such policies
more than the urban areas; the government seized grain and other produce required to feed the
growing urban population.
The first Five Year Plan that commenced in 1928 and lasted until 1932 nevertheless brought about a
great deal of social change and suffering for the broader population, with famine and food shortages
common occurrences.
In 1931, the harvest failed. In 19321933, famine followed and, in 1934, livestock was only half the
1928 figure. Stalin realised that, without food, his plans for industry would collapse, so peasants
were offered incentives to join collectives and were allowed to own private plots on which they could
grow produce to sell, providing the collective farm met government-set targets. This was a slight
compromise on Stalins part, but it still imposed restrictions on peoples economic freedoms.
During the purges and terror of the 1930s, many kulaks resisted attempts to collectivise and control
their farming resources, and destroyed approximately 26 million cattle and 15 million horses in order
to disrupt the governments plans. A violent land war erupted in some parts of the country, with
some villages burned to the ground in a brutal response from Stalins government forces. Millions of
kulaks were killed, arrested, exiled or sent to labour camps (gulags) where they were left to starve
and die.
Due to the forced collectivisation policies and the opposition from kulaks, it took until the 1950s for
livestock figures to return to the levels of 1929.
The second Five Year Plan failed to generate a significant choice or range of consumer goods for most
Soviet people, and the quality of such goods available remained poor.
The third Five Year Plan (19381941) was primarily focused on preparation for World War II, and it
imposed further great burdens and hardship on the Russian people as the government prioritised
armaments and defence over more basic needs such as food. Task 5
Summary of Stalins removal of his rivals from power and influence during the 1920s and 1930s.
Year removed from senior

Name Year of death and how
political office
Trotsky 1925 1940: murdered by Stalinist agent in Mexico City
Kamenev 1925 1936: during the Great Purge shot after trial
Zinoviev 1925 1936: during the Great Purge shot after trial
Rykov 1930 1938: during the Great Purge shot after trial
Bukharin 1929 1938: during the Great Purge shot after trial
Tomsky 1929 1936: committed suicide prior to being purged
Task 6
Fill in the tables below and highlight the key issues relating to Stalins Great Purge or terror during the
1930s.
Key Reasons for Stalins Purges in the 1930s

Stalin feared rival Communist figures challenging his political authority and wanted to replace many
key government figures with individuals who would be extremely loyal to him.
Stalin feared the emergence of Hitler in Germany and came to suspect many of his own citizens of
spying for the Germans.
It allowed Stalin to develop his own individual position and his cult of personality.
Stalin became increasingly paranoid about opposition the longer he was in power.
Key Consequences of Stalins Purges in the 1930s

Soviet society was terrorised and suppressed to an extreme extent, with millions killed or
imprisoned. This negatively affected national morale in the build-up to war.
The military and bureaucratic layers of Soviet government were damaged and weakened by the scale
of the purges this became evident in the early phase of World War II.
Due to the removal of many bureaucrats, administrators and workers, the Soviet economy suffered as
a result.
Many prominent figures within the Communist hierarchy were executed during this period, e.g.
Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev, etc.
Task 7
Summarise the key positives and negatives of Stalins approach to social and cultural policies for the
wider Soviet population.
Positives of Stalins approach to social and Negatives of Stalins approach to social and
cultural policies cultural policies
Maintained order and discipline across Soviet Stifled literary and artistic freedom.
society.
Reduced the influence and power of established Purged many religious and literary figures.
religion.
Focused on improving educational standards. Centralised and bureaucratic control that sought
to regulate all aspects of everyday life.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Antony Beevor, Stalingrad (1998)
Robert Conquest, The Great Terror (1968)
Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985)
James Joll, Europe Since 1870 (4th edn. 1990)
L Kochan and R Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia (1962)
Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992)
Laurence Rees, World War Two: Behind Closed Doors Stalin, the Nazis and the West (2009)
Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (2004)
Websites
Pravda (March 1930):
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm
List of PowerPoint slides
1. Impact of Stalins Leadership on the USSR, 19241941

2. Lenins Revolutionary Legacy
3. Stalins Consolidation of Power
4. Stalins Principal Leadership Rival
5. Stalins Defeat of Left and Right by 1929
6. The State of the NEP by the late 1920s
7. Stalins Motives for Rapid Economic Change
8. Springboard 1: Stalins Rise to Power
9. Stalins Motives for Collectivisation
10. War against the Peasantry from the late 1920s
11. The Five Year Plans
12. Impact of the Five Year Plans
13. Success and Failures of the Five Year Plans
14. Springboard 2: Industrialisation and Agricultural Reform (19281941)
15. The Kirov Murder (1934) and its Effects
16. The Great Terror
17. The Impact of the Great Terror
18. Springboard 3: The Terror State and its Impact on Culture and Society (19341941)
19. Cult of Personality: Stalinist Propaganda
20. Stalin: Ideology, Culture and Society
21. The Build-up to World War II
22. The 1939 NaziSoviet Pact and European Tensions
23. Operation Barbarossa: Germany Invades the Soviet Union (1941)
24. Soviet Wartime Preparations
25. Soviet Weaknesses in 1941
26. Stalin and the Great Patriotic War
27. Stalins Overall Impact (19241941)
28. Springboard 4: Stalins Impact by 1941

A Level AQA HIS2LThe Impact of Stalins Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Level AQA HIS2LThe Impact of Stalins Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

zigzageducation.co.

Become a published author...

*Russian Civil War begins between

Start of Stalins Rule

Trotsky is exiled and Bukharin and Rykov 192

Policy of de-kulakisation commences.

The second Five Year Plan is launched

The Grand Alliance is

Background: From Lenin to Stalin

Communism (Marxism) The Theory

The Development of Communism in Early Twentieth-Century Russia

The Nature of the Russian Economy

Aims of the NEP:

i For your Information

Summary of the New Economic Policy (NEP), 1921

1 Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union, (1985), Ch. 5, p. 119

The Development of Communism in the Soviet Union

Questions and Talking Points

The Power Struggle to Succeed Lenin

Lenin on Stalin in his 1922 testament:

2 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, pp. 3435

Without having read them [they] were committing themselves to

Issue Stalin Trotsky

Summary: Spectrum of Positions of Leading Soviet Communists (Early 1920s)

The Left (radicals)CentreThe Right (moderates)

Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky

Overview: Stalins Consolidation of Power and establishment of

4 Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 5, p. 145

Central Committee Politburo Secretaria

Established by the Communist in the

Annual Party Congress

Stalins Leadership and Communist Factions

Having initially removed any potential rivals

Stalins eventual abandonment of the NEP from 1928

Summary Strengths and Weaknesses of the NEP by 1928

Beginning of the Second Revolution

Questions and Talking Points

6 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, p. 34

Stalins Political and Economic Motives for Collectivisation of Agriculture

The definition of a kulak was not always clear:

7 Geoffrey Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union (1985), Ch. 6, p. 161

Questions and Talking Points

The Impact of Collectivisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941

Famine and agricultural problems had been common occurrences

(The full article can be found on the following web link:

9 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, p. 42

In 1935, food rationing ended as levels of agricultural production steadily grew.

Chain reaction of agricultural growth

Agricultural growth Industrial and economic growth More foreign currency

Further agricultural and industrial growth

The Motives for Planned Industrialisation

10 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 3, p. 38

The Impact of Industrialisation on the Soviet Economy and Society to 1941

In 1933, Adolf Hitler (left), a fierce anti-communist, came to

Summary of the Five Year Plans and Their Changing Focus

Positives of the Five Year Plans

1928 1932 1937

Questions and Talking Points

Five Year Plans (19281941)

The Kirov Murder (1934) and its Effects

While Stalin was directing labour into factories and collective

17 Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics 19171991 (1992), Ch. 4, p. 50

In making connections with repressive and authoritarian rule in