Stalin Maintenance of Power 1929-1953

Economic Policies Stalin’s move away from the NEP was a key tool in his consolidation of power Influenced by practical response to opposition, Scissors Crisis and 1927 War Scare Collectivization of agriculture and industry became the staple Kolkhoz and Sovkhoz

Five Year Plans “The revolution from above…” 1929-32 First Five Year Plan Massive, general industrial buildup, move to the cities 1932 Second Five Year Plan and 1937 Third Five Year Plan Heavy industrial buildup, iron and steel, to prepare for coming war

Elements of the Economy Quotas and targets were created and managed Gosplan Planning Vesenkha Management Enforced by the NKVD (public police) and CHEKA (secret police) Use of incentives Stakhanovite Reward System Formation of Shock Brigades

Economic Success or Failure Stalin’s goal of industrialization fulfilled 1928-41 400 percent increase in coal and 600 percent in steel Able to win a war against Nazi Germany Expense of awful conditions for workers and lack of consumer goods Drive to meet targets led to crime, corruption, terror, etc.

Social Policies Women lose the little freedom they gained under Lenin Back to traditional roles in the Great Retreat Stalin established a cult of personality with propaganda Soviet education increased literacy, science and math Allowed Stalin ability to indoctrinate youth Attacked the Eastern Orthodox Church Briefly sided with them during WWII to gain support

Response to Opposition Collectivization a method of control Kulaks sent to Gulags Famine in 1932 Use of police (NKVD and CHEKA) to enforce such mandates General censorship a legacy of Lenin era General oppression of minorities (notably smaller nationalities)

Response to Opposition Sergei Kirov Rising star in Communist Party 1934, party members are suggesting he would be a better alternative to Stalin, more relaxed In the Central Committee elections in that year, Kirov received far fewer negative votes than Stalin Stalin isolates him in Leningrad for the next nine months Assassinated in December His protection coordinated by the NKVD

Response to Opposition Stalin used the assassination in order to declare a new war on opposition Beginning of the Great Terror, 1936-38 Purges Targets were intellectuals, artists, managers, Trotskyites in the military and conveniently, many of the CPSU officials who had voted for Kirov 1936 Trial of the 16 Zinoviev and Kamenev 1938 Trial of the 21 Bukharin, Rykov

Foreign Policies Continuing the 1919 Comintern 1934 joins the League of Nations 1936 supports Republicans in Spanish Civil War 1938 failures at Munich 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact and invasion of Eastern Poland 1940 USSR-Japan Non-Aggression Pact 1941 ‘Great Patriotic War’ 1943-49 Orthodox historians’ evidence for causing the Cold War

Stalin historiography

Martin McCauley Stalin used brutal and appalling methods, but achieved considerable results, as shown most clearly by industrialisation which allowed USSR to defeat Nazi Germany and emerge as one of the world's two superpowers after the Second World War. Stalin "launched a violent, phenomenally ambitious modernisation of the country” Stalinism "was phenomenally successful and eventually a crashing failure”

E.H. Carr Marxist historian, argues Stalin was a product of his times: produced by the chaos created by the Civil War and the Bolshevik consolidation of power. If Stalin had not taken the initiative to industrialise Russia, someone else would have done so instead. Stalin's rule combined great achievements with incredible brutality, and Stalin was thus for Carr both "an emancipator and a tyrant”

Adam Ulam Liberal American historian writing in the Cold War tradition of anti-USSR, argued strongly that any leader could have industrialised the USSR, and the country would have been far better off without Stalin's rule. Rather than seeing Stalin as a heroic leader of the Great Patriotic war, he argues that Stalin actually got in the way of Soviet victory, as his purges had removed valuable manpower and expertise - esp from the army.

Sheila Fitzpatrick Revisionist historian, looking at popular history 'from the bottom up' - ie. from the perspective of the people rather than the centre of power. She has found positive things to say about Stalin, noting that during his reign the USSR “was at its most dynamic” – engaging in significant social and economic experiments such as the spread of mass education and social services.

Alec Nove An economic historian, born in Russia but who lived and worked his whole life in the West, has argued that in some senses Stalin’s brutal policies were demanded by the situation in which he found himself – only extraordinary methods could achieve success given the condition of the state he inherited from Lenin and the Tsars before him

Richard Pipes Western liberal historian, argues that Stalinism was a continuation of Leninism and condemn them both for brutal crimes This is a position also taken by many Russian historians writing today

Others On the other hand, many Western historians writing today - such as Orlando Figes and Robert Service - argue there was a clear distinction between Lenin and Stalin. While Lenin may have committed atrocities he did so as a result of circumstances and in pursuit of ideals aiming to improve conditions for the entire population. However, Stalin distorted the ideas of Lenin and Marx, and used these as tools in order to consolidate his own personal dictatorship. Stalinism thus rested on a subversion of Marxist ideology which would have appalled Lenin had he lived to see it: in which, as Russel Tarr argues, rather than a classless society of free equals, the workers and peasants were as exploited as they were under the Tsars, and the Party members (nomenklatura) replaced the capitalists as the privileged class. Instead of Marxism, socialism, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the ‘withering away of the state’, there was Stalinism and his personal dictatorship