Stalin’s Early Posturing• Stalin used his wife’s position as

Lenin’s secretary to keep apprised of the inner-workings of the party.

• Lenin had a second stroke before he could “crush Stalin politically” (See Source 8.1 on page 127).

• Stalin maneuvered his way into being a pallbearer at Lenin’s funeral and doing a speech where he ensured that he was perceived as the one assuming Lenin’s ideology and mantle (See Source 8.2 on page 127).

• Also, he ensured Trotsky was convinced that Trotsky would not be able to make it in time for the funeral. This made Trotsky look bad and politically hurt the heir-apparent.

Stalin’s Role in the Bolshevik Party• 1912 invited onto the Central Committee because there

was a shortage of working class leaders.• 1917 - was the editor of Pravda and was given a seat on

the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet.• He always followed Lenin and almost never disagreed. He

played no major role in the October Revolution.• After the Revolution, he was made Commissar for

Nationalities where his office was located close to Lenin’s.

• He was sent to Tsaritsyn to organize food and supplies and defend this area during the Civil War.

• Lenin was forced to look to Stalin when Sverdlov died of the Spanish flu.

• Stalin was appointed the head of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate and later in 1919 Lenin put him in charge of the Orgburo; later he was elected to the Politburo.

• In 1922, he was appointed to the general organizational position of General Secretary of the party. At first, this position seemed a typical administrative job for Stalin, but later came to be a rather powerful position.

Weaknesses of Stalin’s Competition

• Trotsky - did not like the business of political in-fighting, making deals and alliances. He preferred debate and writing as a way of disagreeing. He suffered from undiagnosed fever.

• Zinoviev - Seen by others as vain, incompetent and a coward.

• Kamenev - As Carr says, “[He] had neither the desire nor capacity to lead men; he lacked any clear vision…”

• Bukharin - did not have the political skills and cunning of Stalin.

Main Issues in the Leadership Struggle

• Party members wanted to avoid a dictatorship and feared Trotsky because he led the Red Army and led with a dictatorial style of discipline.

• The NEP polarized the party. With Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev wanting rapid industrialization and militarization of labour and control of the peasants while Bukharin wanted to encourage the peasants to become richer within the NEP and thus ensure simulation of the economy overall.

• Trotsky argued for Permanent Revolution (the fight for socialism worldwide) vs. Socialism In One Country (Stalin’s idea that socialism could flourish on its own in Russia, without world revolution)

How Did Stalin Become Party Leader?

• Party Secretary: control over what was discussed at meetings and information party members received.

• Positions in Orgburo and Secretariat: control of appointments to positions of responsibility especially at local party levels who often decided how party members voted.

• Control of the Party Organization: His selection of delegates that were sent to the annual party congress where party decisions were made. This also made him a valuable ally and why Zinoviev sought his support.

• Control of Party Membership: enabled him to get rid of those who were not likely to support him and instead support Trotsky (soldiers and students). Signed up 500 000 members, many of whom were urban workers not interested in ideological debate and were likely to do as their local organizers told them to do (see point #2). They also liked the patriotism and nationalism of Socialism in One Country.

Stalin’s Rise• Stalin tricked Trotsky into not showing up for Lenin’s funeral (this cost Trotsky severely) and made himself look like a disciple of Lenin’s at the funeral.

• Zinoviev and Kamenev in preventing Lenin’s secret testament from becoming public because it was going to hurt them too - they didn’t believe Stalin was a real threat and thought it would help Trotsky in the battle for the leadership. Trotsky never got involved in this issue…this later hurt him.

• Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin controlled the 1924 congress were Trotsky was unable to encourage change because it was full of Stalin supporters and Trotsky had approved the ban on factions in 1921.

Stalin’s Rise Continued• When Zinoviev and Kamenev attacked Trotsky in 1924

Stalin stayed in the background portraying himself as a beacon of party unity and appointing his supporters and ensuring majorities on committees.

• In 1925 Stalin began to promote his policy of “Socialism in One Country” and received support for this from Bukharin as it was in-line with the NEP, which Bukharin supported.

• When Zinoviev and Kamenev called for a vote of non-confidence Stalin easily won as the party was full of his supporters.

• In 1926, they joined together with Trotsky to try and regain control of the party through demonstrations and the formation of the United Opposition. This made them factionalists and resulted in their expulsion from the party in 1927.

Stalin’s Rise to Power Cont.• In 1928 Stalin advocates the policies of the left

(Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev) by declaring his support of rapid industrialization and use of force to make peasants cooperate.

• Bukharin and members of the right (Rykov and Tomsky) mounted opposition to Stalin’s ideas but Stalin, now fully in control of many voting members, and also receiving support from the anti-NEPers on the left, won and removed Rykov (Premier since Lenin’s death) and Bukharin (head of the Comintern).

• The fate of all those who had competed with Stalin is outlined on page 149

• By 1929 Stalin was clearly the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union and would lead the country for the next 24 years.

Historiographical Opinions on Stalin’s

Rise to Power• Based on the sources from page 146-147 complete the following statements:

• Hosking believes Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Deutscher (1959) believed Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Carr believed Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Bukharin believed Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Deutscher (1966) believed Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Conquest believes Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• McCauley believes Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

• Ward believes Stalin was able to rise to the position of leader because

What Drove Stalin’s Economic Policies• To increase military strength - Russia needed

to industrialize to produce modern weapons as Stalin was convinced they would be attacked.

• To achieve self-sufficiency - Stalin didn’t want to, nor could he, rely on the West for supplies

• To increase grain supplies - see ‘troubled learning spot’ on page 153 for an explanation of how agriculture and industrialization of tied together.

• To move towards a socialist society - the move towards a ‘worker based’ society that was more in-line with communist ideology

• To establish his credentials• To improve standards of living - this prevents revolution, attack by the west and in general keeps people happy.

The NEP Under Stalin• As noted earlier grain was essential to Russian industrialization and as a result of backward agricultural practices, subsistence farming that resulted from farm division between the peasants and a poor relationship between the government and the peasants, grain was simply not reaching the market and remained at 33% the production level of 1913.

• In response, the government drove out private traders, taxed the peasants and forced peasants to sell only to the government. As a result, the peasants withheld grain hoping for a price increase and instead fed the rest to the livestock.

• Stalin retaliated by forcible requisition of the grain.

The NEP and Urban Workers• Wages were not much higher though

working conditions had improved.• Managers were paid much better and prices for food were high.

• Homelessness was rampant and housing sparse.

• Women were unemployed or moved to unskilled labour upon the return of the Red Army.

The Great Turn• Stalin introduced the First Five Year Plan in 1927 which involved production targets for industry and increased industrialization. Also, Stalin planned for collectivization of 25% of peasant farms.

• He felt the NEP encouraged private trading and markets and was not moving Russia towards socialism.

• Russia had poor relations with Poland and France, Britain had broken off diplomatic relations and they feared Japanese invasion; so, industrialization for the purposes of defence was also necessary.

• The Great Turn moved hard in the direction of centralized planning but more than anything, it was the inhuman, tyrannical and a dictatorial way in which Stalin carried his policies that separated the party from the people.

Collectivization• Complete the activity at the bottom of page 159.• The collectivized farm looked most like the kolkhoz, a sort of farm commune, however, there were few profits to divide up between them.

• The private plot on the kolkhoz supplied the town with milk, butter, eggs, etc. and farmers with small amounts of disposable income.

• Stalin believed collectivization would work because the state could provide a more efficient method of farming via mechanization and education. More workers could be freed to work in the cities. There would be fewer collection points and Communist supporters would ensure grain was not being hidden away.

• This would essentially socialize the peasants in the same way they had hoped to socialize the workers.

Why Rush?• Stalin carried out collectivization quickly because people were hungry in 1928-29 and he believed the Kulaks and peasants would continue ‘hold the government hostage’ (Source 11.5).

• However, given the short timeline, the supplies were simply not in place to ensure a successful transition.

• Historians also remind us of Stalin’s desire to socialize Russia as a cause of collectivization, as well as, a belief that this would speed the process of industrialization.

• Note, that in addition to these reasons, there could have been upwards of eight other factors (see the ‘learning trouble spot’ on page 162 for this lesson in multiple causation.

How Collectivization Was Carried Out

• Stalin targeted the “Kulaks” who poor peasants refused to turn in.

• Stalin established an army of 25 000 to seize Kulak land and materials and shoot or send to forced labour camps ‘counter-revolutionaries’, deport ‘active opponents of collectivization and move some to poor land.

• Any suspected opponents (and there were some 10 million by the end of the process) were shot, sent to Gulag labour camps to build roads and canals or shipped to Siberia.

• Sometimes pure selfish greed or vendetta caused people to turn in so-called Kulaks.

• Peasants burned crops and eat animals, ‘Kulaks’ became less productive, all in preference to handing their produce or wealth over to the state.

The Impact of Collectivization• The most successful farmers had been deported,

shot and simply slowed to avoid the aforementioned. Also, 20-30% of livestock were slaughtered.

• People lacked motivation and feared the socialization of women and euthanization of older people.

• Stalin back-tracked in 1930, just long enough to have peasants produce their own crops and during harvest promptly re-collectivize them.

• The Ukrainians during the famine of 1932-34 were likely targeted by Stalin as a area of resistance to collectivization, nationalism and his desire to control the heart of grain country.

• Thousands of officials were hired to requisition grain that, according to Conquest, often sat and rotted waiting for transport.

Results of Collectivization• There is some suggestion that the famine was

not directly targeted at the Ukrainians…what does the newspaper article suggest?

• For those trying to sell grain or steal some for food Stalin implemented death sentences.

• The net result of the policy was: the purging of the peasants who had the best farming experts; poorly organized collective farms; lack of machinery and fertilizers; lack of know how; the resistance of peasants who slaughtered animals and refused to work hard; the excessive amounts of grain from the worse hit areas was exported abroad to pay for industrial equipment.

• Complete questions 1,4 and 5 on page 167.

Was Collectivization A Success• Collectivization promoted apathy and passive

resistance, peasants felt like serfs again.• Success: state procurements of grain did not drop and supplies could be purchased for factories and urban workers fed, peasants came to the city and provided labour for the factories, the party gained control of the countryside.

• Failure: grain harvests dropped, lost a huge percentage of the animal population, the Great Depression reduced the amount they could get for grain, resources had to be poured into building tractors and other implements for the collective farms as well as policing and organizing collectivization, human costs were unreal (esp. the Ukrainian Famine).

• In what ways does Service (pg. 172) see collectivization as a success? In what ways does he see it as a failure?

Organization of the Five Year Plans

• Stalin approached the Five Years Plans as though they were engaging in war and used this kind of terminology which inevitably gave Stalin someone/thing to blame if things went wrong.

• The state decided what, where and when something would be produced and assessed fines and jail time if quotas were not met. If quotas were met, bonuses were awarded.

• Private industry was starved of supplies and disappeared. However, the people that required the resources that private industry offered now lacked the clothing and basic supplies that were no longer available.

• They were organized from the “top down” and labour unions were expected to focus on encouraging production not fighting for better working conditions.

Features of the Five Year Plans• Plans were dominated by developing heavy industry.

• The plans were driven by the belief that industrial revolution was underpinned by the development of coal, iron and steel.

• They also wanted to develop industry that would help protect them from the West.

• They were always declared finished ahead of time for purposes of propaganda and superiority to The West during the Great Depression.

• Manufacturing locations were developed strategically to ensure protection in case of attack.

• Spectacular projects were developed in order to show Russian superiority to the Western system.

• American specialists assisted in education in the area of manufacturing and engineering. Thousands of skilled labourers traveled to the USSR to work due to unemployment and ideological preference.

The First Five Year Plan• Basic and optimum results

• Utopic in nature• Poor planning for implementation which was left to regional

planners and managers• With pressure to produce, corruption was rife, there was

underproduction because factories were held up by shortages of materials. At the same time, overproduction created thousands of parts that other industries did not want.

• Targets were not met (note Source 12.11, pg. 181) and products of poor quality products were produced.

• Managers were unwilling to admit to when targets were not met and invented production rates. When the truth was occasionally revealed managers were accused of being counter-revolutionaries and endured show trials (note the Shakhty coal mine incident). Also, bourgeois specialists were left on the hook for the underproduction and killed or sent to prison camps, until the leadership realized how significantly this decision affected production. This of course left the USSR short of the much-needed specialists to run the new system

• Statisticians were replaced by those willing to give more encouraging results.

The Second and Third Five-Year Plans• With severe shortages, disruption in transport,

lack of skilled workers and slow growth in some industries, the Party scaled back expectations.

• Attention was paid to detail: workers were being trained and estimates to cost, labour and prices were more diligently reflected upon.

• More resources were put into consumer goods, which were almost totally neglected during the First Five-Year Plan.

• Self-sufficiency seemed to be on the horizon at the end of the Second Five-Year Plan. At the start of the Third Five-Year Plan, Stalin began removing key cogs during the Great Purges (see source 12.13, pg. 183), the oil industry was unable to met their modest targets and shortages re-appeared during preparation for war. In the end the chaos was similar to the First Five-Year Plan.

How Did Workers Fare Under The Plans

• Workers were supportive of the Five Year Plans as significant improvement under the NEP has not taken place.

• They were trained to take the place of bourgeois managers (note the ‘learning trouble spot’ that details the necessity of this, pg. 184) as well as receive an increase in pay, better working conditions, easier access to housing and public recognition (see source 12.23, pg. 189).

• According to Sarah Davies, women were likely to be paid less, less literate and less involved in politics, technical education and positions of leadership (eg. though 50-60% of doctors were women, only 4 were heads of hospitals).

• Half of industrial workers were peasants who were nomadic (see source 12.20, pg. 188), unskilled and undisciplined. This resulted in high turnover rates, broken machinery and production of poor products (See source 12.15-12.18, pgs. 185-186)

Responding to Labour Problems• Wage differentials and incentives were used to

encourage people to stay at the same job instead of jumping around.

• Piece work• Training was introduced to deal with poor quality products and inefficiency

• Dismissal, eviction from factory homes and prison time were used to deal with tardiness and absenteeism. 1938 - labour books introduced to record labour history and in 1940, absenteeism was declared a crime.

• Forced labour of prisoners was introduced to deal with labour shortages in some of the worst jobs - like canal building.

• Propaganda movement - Sources 12.19 and 12.21 (pg. 188), shock brigade campaigns and the Stakhanovite movement.

Urban Living Conditions

• Overcrowding, violent, crime-ridden, lack of housing, poor transportation, shortage of water and shops, long queues for basic necessities, 2/3rds reduction in meat, vegetable and fruit consumption.

How Successful Were The Five-Year Plans?

• Growth in heavy industry• Unrealistic targets, use of bribery, corruption, major shortages, poor quality products, poorly organized, poor living conditions

• Hard to tell - managers, regional officials and top officials did not want to be seen as incapable of meeting targets so figures were often so distorted that many historians simply say there is no way to determine the extent to which they successfully achieved their goals.

Why The Purges?• It was difficult to get local party officials to implement central policies and orders. They argued about high grain collection targets, were unwilling to identify kulaks and were reluctant to get rid of specialists and managers who might help them achieve their industrial production targets. Some were reluctant to implement the degrees of terror the centre demanded.

• As a result Moscow instituted more discipline including revoking party memberships (22% by 1935)

Cause For Concern• Ryutin developed and circulated a document that was highly critical of Stalin and Stalin was not able to get the Politburo to execute him.

• Stalin and his supporters were able to cover up a poll taken suggesting that Kirov would easily have defeated Stalin in an election.

• At the Seventeenth Party Congress Stalin was challenged in his plans by Sergei Kirov and both were given the title of Secretary of Equal Rank and the title of General Secretary was removed.

• Kirov was murdered shortly after this and the motives for the murder are still debated today.

• Kirov’s murder was used as a pretext and justification for the Great Purges, and, according to Robert Conquest, a turning point in history.

The Great Purges• Show trials were used to purge the party of Stalin’s opponents, create an atmosphere of intimidation, a sense of danger and the feeling that there were enemies, spies and wreckers around.

• Many of Stalin’s opponents for leadership the party were killed after show trials in the late 1930’s, including, Buhkarin, Zinoviev, Kaminev and Rykov.

• Many confessed to clearly contrived evidence because of torture and interrogation and to ensure that their family members would be spared.

Purging the Party• Both workers and administrators worked to find “traitors” and ‘spies” within the party - if only to save themselves or settle a score.

• Deportations of oppositionists took place after Kirov’s murder.

• In July 1937, the Politburo passed a resolution condemning ‘Anti-Soviet Elements’ in Russian society. Yezhov drew up a list of over 250 000 ‘elements’ including scientists, artists, writers, musicians, administrators, historians and managers.

• Stalin feared the loyalty of the military (see source 13.24)

• Though not essay material, you may find the section on Arrest and Interrogation interesting and may shed some light on the importance of confessions.

• Stalin halted the purges in 1939 as they were debilitating the administration of Russia (see summary of the victims).

• Conquest suggests there were as many as 20 million deaths during Stalin’s reign.

Why Do Historians Disagree About The Purges?• The nature of the topic - its scale, varying definitions of what it

involves• They have different political perspectives — e.g. different views

of socialism and Communism• They use different sources — e.g. memoirs, primary papers,

secondary accounts, oral accounts, archaeology• The times in which they write — e.g. under Stalin, during the Cold

War, during the glasnost period of the late 1980s• They wish to challenge prevailing views to make their names - e.g.

revisionists challenge totalitarian interpretations• In the context of the purges there has been an acrimonious debate

over the use of sources. J. Arch Getty has criticised Western accounts that have relied on sources such as memoirs and accounts by people who fled the Soviet Union. He says they have a political bias that makes them unreliable and they are bound to attack Stalin as the central agent of terror. He places his emphasis on the use of archival records and official documents.

• Other historians, including Alec Nove and Robert Conquest, accept that personal accounts should be treated with caution but make the point that archival materials and official reports can also be unreliable; officials simply reported what their superiors wanted them to hear. They maintain that oral history and memoirs are indeed valuable sources.

The Totalitarian View• Stalin was the architect and planner of the purges. He exercised much personal control over arrests and directives.

• Stalin used purges as a weapon to establish control of the party.

• Stalin used purges in1937-38 as a terror mechanism to control the populace.

• The NKVD was the instrument of a disciplined state apparatus which carried out orders passed down from the top.

• Stalin sought to get rid of old Bolsheviks who might present a threat to his leadership.

• Stalin’s personality was central to the way the purges were carried out.

The Revisionist View• Stalin is responsible for the terror and set it in

process, but his personality alone is not a sufficient explanation for the scale and form of the purges.

• Stalin did not exercise the personal control of the process ascribed to him and he had little idea about what was going on in some areas.

• The Soviet state was chaotic in the mid-1930s. There was confusion and conflict between Moscow and the rest of the USSR. The centre used the purges to try to get control but they spiralled out of control and gained a momentum of their own.

• Stalin did not have a masterplan for the purges.• The machinery of terror was not well organised. Many

people were selected at random, denounced or implicated by their colleagues or other people. Terror was generated from below as well as from above

• The NKVD was ridden by internal divisions. Units within the organisation often acted on their own initiative

The Role of Stalin’s Personality in the Purges

• Complete questions 1 and 2 of the activity on page 223.• Deeply suspicious of others, verging on paranoia.

Khrushchev reports that Stalin was a very 'distrustful man, sickly suspicious, seeing everywhere about him "enemies", "double dealers" and "spies'". The suicide of his wife seems to have made him even more convinced that those around him would betray him, so he wanted to get them before they got him.

• Vindictive and vengeful, a bearer of grudges, taking revenge on those who had belittled or thwarted him in the past. In the early days of the revolution, the old Bolsheviks had treated him in a condescending way as mediocre and dull.

• Crude and brutal even for a Bolshevik, with a fascination for violence; when hard pushed, he resorted to violence as a solution to his problems

• Limited abilities but unlimited ambitions; he had an inferiority complex.

The Role of Stalin’s Personality in the Purges Cont.

• Idealised view of himself as the hero of the revolution, a genius who alone could take Russia forward to socialism and effect the transformation of the country, and who therefore could not be thwarted. This is a view stressed by Alan Bullock (Source 13.35) and Robert Tucker. Those who refused to accept his vision Stalin defined as traitorous; “Only by believing in the victims' treasonous designs or deed could he come to terms with their failure to share his grandiose beliefs about himself.”

• These facets of his character -paranoia and vengefulness - might explain why his former comrades were killed rather than disgraced, demoted or exiled as they would have been under Lenin.

• This might explain the violence of the terror carried out against party members and people who were causing him problems.

• This might explain why he had to get rid of the old Bolshevik party members who knew his limitations, would not accept his heroic pose and might try to thwart him. He may also have wanted to destroy those who were his intellectual superiors, especially in party doctrine and history.

Stalin’s Motives• Stalin felt threatened by the growing opposition to him in the early 1930s. He reacted to this by eliminating all possible rivals so that no one could form an alternative government.

• Stalin was determined to be in a position of absolute power:

• He wanted to bring the party under his total control so that they would carry out his policies and edicts without question. Keeping the party in a constant state of insecurity (who would be arrested or denounced next?) was a way of keeping control.

• By the late 1930s, Stalin was convinced that there was a good chance of war. He wanted to remove anybody who might oppose his foreign policy He also did not want to allow anybody to slow down the pace of industrialisation because the Soviet Union would need weapons and armaments to fight the war. It was essential to make the revolution safe from external threats.

Other Reasons For the Purges

• Increasing control over the party• Deflecting blames for economic problems

• Responding to the threat of war• Supplying slave labour• Consolidating the power of the NKVD

• Controlling an unstable society

Cult of Personality• Complete activity 1a on page 230.• Another important aspect of the cult was the reinterpretation of history in Stalin’s favour in the The Short Course where he was portrayed as Lenin’s closest companion (see page 234-235). Over 34 million copies were sold throughout Russia.

• The First Five Year Plan and the purges were a confusing time. Former heroes were reviled as traitors; wreckers and saboteurs. The image of Stalin reassured the people that they had a strong leader to take them through these difficult times. The Cult was useful in holding society together.

• Stalin was glorified in paintings, posters, daycares, operas, films.

• He was portrayed as one of the people and his success in WWII further perpetuated the cult.

Factors Influencing Soviet Foreign Policy

• Complete question 1 of the activity at the top of page 240.

• Ideology: Desire to spread a communist revolution worldwide.

• Security (fear of invasion): Large land mass to protect, constant invasion historically.

• Economic Backwardness: The USSR needed help to expand their backward industry.

• Paradigms of individual leaders.• Attitudes of Other Countries: The rise of Hitler, attitudes of the USA, Britain and France towards Hitler and the Soviet Union.

• The Internal Situation: For example, the end of the Civil War, the Five-Year Plans and collectivization.

Stalin’s Approach to Foreign Policy

• Stalin was committed to Socialism in One Country and thought it ridiculous to risk transforming the Soviet Union for the purpose of spreading Socialism in other countries.

• Stalin was pragmatic. In China, he supported Chiang Kai-shek, who was quite clearly anti-communist, in his efforts to support a major player in China that he could work with on the international scale until a stronger communist group developed. However, when Chiang massacred thirty to forty thousand Communists, Stalin didn’t look so good.

• This would later impact Sino-Soviet relations after the communist revolution in China in 1949.

Soviet Foreign Policy as of 1933

• The USSR was regarded as a European power once more.

• There was no united capitalist front against the USSR.

• Foreign governments had begun to think they might be able to do business with the USSR.

• Valuable military and industrial gains had come from cooperation with Germany.

• In 1933 the USA gave the USSR official recognition.

• When Hitler, an anti-communist, rose to power, relations were cut off with the Soviet Union.

Reasons For Involvement in Spain

• See page 257• Ideology• Soviet security• Diversionary effect• Elimination of Trotsky's supporters

• Propaganda gains• Military experience

Results of Soviet Involvement• The Soviet Union gained the Spanish gold

reserve - the fourth largest in the Western world.

• The propaganda value of Russia’s identification with the anti-fascist cause was reduced by criticism of the anti-revolutionary and generally repressive conduct of the Communists in Spain.

• Many of the officers and diplomats who had served in Spain were purged on their return to the USSR. So little use was made of the military experience gained.

• The failure of France and Britain to help the Republic alongside the USSR offered no encouragement for those like Litvinov who saw collective security against fascism as the way forward.

Why Stalin Dealt With Hitler in Order to Maintain His

Regime• A pact with Germany was the only way to be sure of avoiding war in the West - Soviet security was Stalin’s main concern.

• It would avoid a war on two fronts - the USSR was involved in hostilities with Japan, and Germany had influence with Japan through the anti-Comintern Pact. Note the Learning trouble spot on page 261.

• Soviet armed forces had been hit by the purges and the rearmament programme was nowhere near completion. A pact with Germany would at least buy Russia more time.

• Russia would gain half of Poland and a sphere of influence from Finland to Romania, including the Baltic States.

• Agreement with Germany would be inline with the Treaty of Rapallo and the good relations of 1922-1934.

• Germany was still the USSR’s major trading partner.• It was in Stalin’s interests to stand aside while the

capitalists nations fought each other.• It would appear to be an ideological somersault - a

reversal of collective security against fascism

The Purposes of the Nazi-Soviet Pact

• Examine thoroughly the chart on page 266• The Soviet View: The Soviet Union was attempting to build a wall of security against Nazi aggression as well as the Western world who would take advantage of fighting between the two.

• The German School: Stalin always wanted to deal with Germany and only engaged in collective security talks with the Western world in order to attract the Nazis. He wished to see the Western world engage in a destructive war.

• Collective Security School: Stalin was entirely committed to collective security.

• Complete Activity questions 1 at the bottom of page 267.

The Cultural Revolution• It was a vision of what a socialist future

might be like• In addition to denouncing Nepmen and Kulaks old bourgeois were attacked as well as those working in academic subjects such as history, philosophy, science, cinema, art and literature.

• The Komsomols attacked religion in villages, broke up plays and criticised painters and writers who did not follow the party line.

• Assisted in imposing labour discipline• Assisted in enforcing collectivisation• Worked to expose official abuses• Reported non-party teachers and students’ families who were formerly bourgeois

• They were seen as pace-setters in industry

The Impact of the Cultural Revolution on Religion

• The government stressed the link between kulaks and churchgoers, accusing priests of supporting the peasants in their resistance to collectivisation.

• Priests were run out of villages and churches were raided and even bells melted down for industry.

• Punitive taxes were imposed that prevented churches from affording to function and by the end of 1930, 80% of village churches were closed and only 1 in 40 were functioning. Most had been knocked down or were being used by the government.

• Orthodox priests fell from 60 000 in the 20’s to 5665 in 1941.

The Impact of the Cultural Revolution on Education

• Traditional teaching and discipline came under attack, as did textbooks, homework and testing.

• Shulgin, who headed an education research institute suggested the ‘withering away of school’ and that ‘socially useful work’ such as, gathering firewood, working in factories, teaching peasants to read and distributing anti-religious literature be the focus of education.

• Although it didn’t last long, older non-party teachers were driven out which would later impact negatively the availability of educators for formal education.

• See Source 18.4 on page 290.

The Impact of the Cultural Revolution the Arts

• Master paintings were vandalized as products of bourgeois culture, and some galleries began to label exhibits according to the class origins of the artists.

• The RAPP (Russian Association of Proletarian Writers) was used to control Soviet writers and to fight ‘deviations in literature’. Socialist construction and class struggle had to be at the heart of literature.

• The principal task of Soviet cinema was to raise the cultural level of the masses. Films were to be straightforward and realistic with a simple story plot.

Isaak Brodsky• Isaak Brodsky was a Soviet painter whose work provided a blueprint for the art movement of socialist realism. He is known for his iconic portrayals of Lenin and idealized, carefully crafted paintings dedicated to the events of the Russian Civil War and Bolshevik Revolution.

Alexander GerasimovCombining techniques of academic realism with an Impressionistic light touch. He favored a style known as heroic realism, which featured images of Revolutionary leaders such as Lenin as larger-than-life heroes. However, as Stalin tightened his grip on the country, Gerasimov's work descended into pompous official portraits, such as "Stalin and Voroshilov in the Kremlin," for which he won a Stalin Prize in 1941.

I.V.Stalin and K.E.Voroshilov in the Kremlin after the Rain

Alexander Nevsky• Alexander Nevsky was made during the Stalinist era, when the Soviet

Union was at odds with Nazi Germany. • The film contains obvious allegory that reflect the political

situation between the two countries at the time it was produced. Some types of helmets worn by the Teutonic soldiers resemble exaggerated versions of German soldier helmets from the 20th century, emphasizing grasping eagle talons or animal horns, and covering the entire face except for a narrow full-face slit for eyes which cannot be seen.

• In the first draft of the Alexander Nevsky script, swastikas even appeared in the invaders' helmets.

• The film portrays Alexander as a folk hero and shows him bypassing a fight with the Mongols, his old enemies, in order to face the more dangerous enemy.

• The film was finished only a few months before Stalin entered into the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which provided for non-aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union.

• The film was therefore pulled from distribution within a few weeks of its (highly successful) opening within and outside the Soviet Union, ostensibly indefinitely. It was the first film completed by Eisenstein in 10 years. But the situation was reversed dramatically in 1941 after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and the film was rapidly returned to Soviet and western screens.

Children• Juvenile crime was perceived as an increasing problem in the first half of the 1930’s. For juvenile offenders, the law was relatively mild and rehabilitation was preferred. As of 1935, capital punishment was introduced for violent crimes by children over the age of 12.

• The NKVD took decisive action in attempting to get children off the street…parents could be fined for the crimes of their children and risk having them taken away and put in orphanages.

The Great Retreat

Complete the first question of the activity at the bottom of page 294.

Issue 1920s 1930sAbortion Allowed Outlawed

except in the case of a risk to health

Divorce Postcard Divorces

Both required to attend divorce proceedings and a 50 rouble cost

Family Described as Bourgeois and patriarchal

Marriage was to be taken seriously and children urged to love and respect their parents

The Arts After the Cultural Revolution• In April of 1932, Stalin abolished all proletarian

artistic and literary organizations. His rationale was that the Cultural Revolution was complete and that artists needed to work together. Avant-garde artists were excluded from the mainstream.

• Stalin liked realism – art which could be easily understood by the masses and which told a story. It would be a good vehicle for propaganda.

• Socialist realism meant seeing life as it was becoming and ought to be, rather than as it was. Art was a good example of this where paintings swarmed with tractors, threshing machines and combine harvesters or else there were peasants looking happy or scenes with tables groaning with food.

• Artists were given guidelines and were commissioned.• Museum directors and their staffs received bonuses if

they exceeded their targets…the more people that were moved through to see the exhibitions, the more that would be exposed to Soviet Realism and thus Soviet propaganda.

Music and Literature After the Cultural Revolution

• Music was to be joyous and positive much like Soviet society was supposed to be like. When the great composer Shostakovich failed to do so he never composed an opera again.

• In literature, the organizing body was headed by Maxim Gorky, a non-party member (see page 301 for the story on his idealism and of his demise).

• Realism in literature was the focus – state control was strong because of this, some great writers like Boris Pasternak (Doctor Zhivago), gave up serious writing altogether in the 30’s because of this.

• Simple, direct language and cheap mass editions were demanded to make books accessible to a newly literate readership.

Cinema After the Cultural Revolution• Filmmakers were controlled by the politburo’s

economic department and films had to be presented ‘in a form that [could] be understood by the millions’.

• Under it, elaborately detailed scripts for new films – the subjects of which were often prescribed by Stalin – had to be pre-censored in the State Committee for Cinematography; the film director had to work with colleagues whose task it was to ensure strict execution of the approved plan.

• The Bolsheviks had believed that film would be particularly effective and that the mass audience would be incapable of rejecting its message.

• The myth that film was an effective method of propaganda was more influential than the films themselves.

Education After the Cultural Revolution• In 1931, there was a recognition that education had

failed. Note the quote on page 301. • Stalin needed educated workers to work in skilled jobs and be able to take advantage of the higher education and training schemes that were now being offered.

• The core recommendation of the Central Committee was to emphasize the teaching of physics, chemistry and math. They also recommended that these programs ‘be based on strictly delineated and carefully worked out programmes and study plans’, and that classes should be organized on a firm timetable.

• Discipline was emphasized and the authority of parents and teachers over students was supported; in the late 1930’s school uniforms reappeared.

• Entrance to university was based more on academic success than on class or political criteria. Exams, degrees and academic titles were restored.

The Teaching of History• Soon after the revolution, history was banished as a

school subject because it was seen as irrelevant to contemporary life and had been used under the tsars to develop patriotism and reinforce the values of the ruling class.

• In May 1934, a decree on history teaching was issued declaring that the old method of teaching history must be replaced with ‘mandatory consolidation in pupils memories of important historical events and historical personages and chronological dates’.

• The years 1917-1937 were ‘presented as the finale of embattled Russia’s long march through history from humble beginnings in the tenth century to world leadership and greatness under Lenin and Stalin.’

• The past and its interpretation was important to Stalin. In Soviet history books, he emerged as one of the main architects of the revolution, the close companion and adviser to Lenin and hero of the Civil War.

The Purpose of the Cultural Revolution and the Ensuing

Shift• They were looking to create a citizen that would embody the morality, values and social responsibility inherent in Socialism.

• Stalin believed that socialist characteristics could be passed on if people were taught the right habits and attitudes (he also believed this was scientific fact).

• Stalin tried to create a socialist paradise at Magnitogorsk with the hopes that success here would show people how successful socialism could be (see the chart on 304 for details how this socialist paradise was attempted and the ways in which it failed).

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?Stalin’s Personality• His desire to dominate and be the hero of

the revolution, • His love of adulation, • His conviction that he knew the right policies to follow and must not be thwarted,

• His paranoid behaviour and desire to get rid of individuals and groups who stood in his way,

• His tendency to use violence and terror to crush opposition and pursue his policies – all these traits influenced the system that emerged, particularly the nature of the purges and the use of terror.

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?

The Circumstances Surrounding the Civil War• Lenin and a small minority had seized power in October 1917.

They had refused to work with other socialist parties and had become isolated.

• Also, the country was in ruins after the war and there was a chaotic situation rapidly running out of control.

• To stay in power, to keep a lid on the explosive situation and suppress disorder, the Bolsheviks were ruthless – the launched the Red Terror, set up the Cheka and created an increasingly authoritarian state.

• The Civil War also had a profound effect on the Bolshevik Party. It enforced on them military discipline, which demanded party unity above all else and strict obedience.

• It led to the development of a combative and siege mentality that made them see enemies and conspiracies everywhere. It was a life and death struggle which made them become hardened, pitiless and intolerant in their dealing with opposition.

• This mentality continued into the 1930’s. The regime was not confident it could hold on to power and still saw enemies all around. Faced with this fear and insecurity, it resorted to terror and violence to resolve its problems. All this fed into Stalinism.

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?Economic Reasons - Was Stalin Necessary?

• Alec Nove argues that Soviet Russia was in an economic impasse at the end of the 1920s. It was still a backward country dependent on a peasantry unwilling to support the state's industrialization and modernization plans.

• Also, the anticipated world revolution had failed to materialize, leaving it isolated in the world and without the support of other countries to develop its industry and build socialism.

• For the majority of Bolsheviks, the only way out of this impasse was the 'socialist offensive' of 1928 and the launching of the rapid industrialization and collectivization programme.

• Nove believes that once the decision had been taken to industrialize rapidly, it was bound to bring the party into conflict with the people because it would inevitably mean that their living standards would be hit and the party would be unpopular.

• The party would therefore have to use coercive methods 'on a grand scale' with a strong police state and 'party members fully employed in enforcing these drastic policies'. The socialist offensive would also involve the mass mobilization of society - the use of wartime allusions and appeals to patriotism, warnings about the dangers of enemies and wreckers within and without, the encouragement of criticism of officials - which was a key feature of Stalinism.

• In these sorts of circumstances, Nove contends, a leader like Stalin was the one the party wanted because he had the qualities to carry them through this tough period.

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?The Nature of the Central Planning System

• The command economy requires the hierarchical organisation of society into ranks and levels with a 'supremo' at the top.

• With such a complex process to coordinate, involving thousands of products and hundreds of economic enterprises, there has to be an authority that issues instructions from the top.

• These are passed down to people at different levels who have to take decisions about the allocation of scarce supplies and materials.

• Then instructions are passed down from above to lower levels. Stalin used a system of rewards and wage differentials to encourage people at different levels to do their jobs, develop their skills and keep the workers' production rate up.

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?

Russian History• Russia had a history of autocracy, with officials whose duty it was to serve the state and the tsar.

• State control over the people was normal and the state had played a commanding role in the growth of capitalism and industry in tsarist Russia.

• There were no habits or traditions of democratic political institutions.

• People were used to the idea of a strong leader who prevented anarchy and disorder.

• So Stalin tapped into a strong tradition in the role he adopted as a godlike figure who would provide strong leadership and see the Russian people through a difficult time.

Why did the Stalinist Dictatorship Develop?Stalinism was Inherent in Leninism

• All the apparatus of the Stalinist state - rule by one party, centralized control, central planning, secret police and the use of terror - was in place before Stalin became leader. Stalin used and extended these to their logical conclusion.

• Complete the activity on page 310Stalin was inherent in that both wanted:• a one party state• used terror against opponents• centralization was used during the Civil War and was continued by Stalin

• Lenin separated himself from “commoners” and Stalin continued with this

• Lenin initiated purges and Stalin continued and exceeded this practice

• State economic planning in Lenin (War Communism and NEP) Stalin continued with this practice with collectivization, industrialization and the Stakhanovite campaign

In What Ways Was Stalinism NOT Inherent in Leninism

• Lenin likely would not have extended his authoritarian practices to the extent that Stalin did.

• Stalin developed a cult of personality that Lenin was wholly opposed to

• Lenin was not the terrorist that Stalin exhibited in the 1930’s.

• Lenin’s purges were non-violent, involving withdrawal of party memberships nothing like Stalin’s extremely violent purges

• Lenin wanted the national minorities to stay in the Soviet Union by choice; Stalin wanted to bend them to the will of Moscow.

• Lenin wanted to dismantle the overly bureaucratic nature of the party before he died Stalin of course increased the dictatorial nature.

• Lenin had stated clearly that the peasantry should not be coerced into collective farm

• Ultimately Stalin fell back on the trusted methods of terrorism used by Lenin and pushed them way to far, he was the executioner of Lenin’s comrades and was responsible for the deaths of millions.

Stalin: A Final Assessment• The Stalinist state was full of contradictions and

inefficiencies. • This was in part due to the breakneck speed of industrialization whereby Stalin hoped to compress into a few years a process that had taken centuries in the West.

• Policies were often ill conceived and introduced so rapidly that they had unintended consequences that proved counterproductive.

• Collectivization met the immediate needs of the Soviet state but saddled the Soviet Union with an inefficient, unproductive agricultural system.

• The command economy was a rough and ready tool that was well suited to achieving rapid growth in the 1930s but led to the creation of a vast, unresponsive bureaucracy unable to deliver the goods after the Second World War.

• Terror and propaganda served to mobilize the population in the 1930s but were, by their very nature, incapable of producing a critical elite capable of reforming the system.