Stalin Essay Research Paper Stalin

Stalin Essay, Research Paper

Stalin’s rise to power was a combination of his ability to manipulate situations and the failure of others to prevent him from taking power, especially Leon Trotsky. Trotsky did not take advantage of several opportunities which would have helped him to crush Stalin politically. When he failed to take advantage of these opportunities, Stalin maneuvered himself into a stronger position within the party by allying with Zinoviev and Kamnev. He manipulated them into crushing Trotsky, thus eliminating the strongest opponent in his path to power. Stalin deftly avoided potential political ruin when Lenin formulated his Testament in December 1922. Lenin’s Testament described what he thought of the future of the Party and Party leaders, especially Trotsky and Stalin. Lenin warned of a potential split in which Stalin and Trotsky would be the chief factors. When describing Stalin, Lenin felt that he had concentrated ” unlimited authority in his hands and whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.” (Clark 472). The content of Lenin’s Testament eventually became more detrimental to Trotsky than Stalin. Coupled with the Lenin incidentally undermining Trotsky, Stalin manipulated the content of the Testament to enhance his stature. By mentioning Stalin as one of the prominent members of the Party, Lenin raised Stalin’s stature to that of Trotsky. The equivalent stature of Stalin and Trotsky made Trotsky seem to be less important in relation to Lenin and thus to the Party apparatus. Further damaging Trotsky, Lenin described him as possessing ” excessive self-confidence and overly attracted by the purely administrative aspects of affairs ” (Clark 472) The latter characterization of Trotsky was one that Stalin employed against him throughout their struggle for power. Lenin then added a postscript to the Testament on January 4, 1923, characterizing Stalin as a poor choice for Secretary General by stating, ” Stalin is too rude and this defect becomes intolerable in a Secretary General.” (Clark 474). Lenin continued on to state that ” the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man ” (Clark 474). Lenin felt that if the removal of Stalin was not acted upon, the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin would escalate, which would in turn endanger the party as a whole. Combined with the Testament, the Postscript could have served as a tool for Trotsky to obtain power, instead Stalin squashed it in the Central Committee. Another possible advantage left unused by Trotsky was Lenin’s disagreement with Stalin on how to handle the Georgian Affair. During the war with Poland, the Soviet republic signed a treaty with the Menshevik government of Georgia, ” which solemnly undertook to respect Georgian independence.” (Segal 240). Lenin wanted to maintain that Georgia remained a ” sovereign and independent unit which would have joined the Russian federative state.” (Clark 477). As Commissar of Nationalities, Stalin ordered the suppression of the Menshevik party in Georgia. In order to achieve his goal, Stalin was preparing a constitution which was ” to be much more centralistic and would curtail and abrogate the rights of the non-Russian nationalities ” Also in this new constitution, Stalin was going to change ” Soviet Federation of republics into the Soviet Union.” (Pro 51) Through a series of notes, after the postscript, Lenin, with a guilty conscience, admitted that he had not sufficiently stopped the new oppression of the weak by the strong and viewed the centralistic nature of Stalin’s scheme as being “borrowed from Tsardom and only just covered with a Soviet veneer ” (Pro 71). He proceeded to dictate notes on the Georgian Affair, which were scathing criticisms of Stalin’s conduct. He described Stalin as a “truly Russian man, the Great Russian chauvinist, who is essentially an oppressor ” (Pro 71). Lenin communicated to Trotsky that he desired him ” take upon yourself the defense of the Georgian affair at the Central Committee ” (Clark 479) and attached a copy of his notes on the subject. Warning Trotsky not to show weakness or uncertainty and not to accept any compromises that Stalin might offer. He stressed the need to avoid warning Stalin and his associates of the offensive. Stalin’s antagonism towards Trotsky was apparent. He criticized Stalin’s performance as Commissar of Rabkrin by stating that ” it was useless to look to Rabkrin for guidance if the need arises for any change of policy or for any serious reform in organization ” (Pro 47). Zinoviev, the most popular member of the Politbureau, acted as Lenin’s ” loud and stormy mouthpiece whos knowledge about the world was unrefined and unpolished consequently leaving him devoured by ambition to rise higher in the party ” (Pro 79). Kamenev, though less popular, was more respected by inner party leaders. Armed with a more cultivated intellect and a steadier character Kamenev was attracted by moderate ideas and policies which set him up as Zinoviev’s idealistic balance. Their traits complemented each other and thus they compromised and worked together well. The combination of these three leaders produced a majority against Trotsky in the Politbureau. Instead of executing Lenin’s intentions, he proceeded to accept an undesirable compromise. Lenin intended on expelling Stalin from the party for at least two years. Trotsky stated that he ” was against removing