If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation?. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation? paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation?, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation? paper at affordable prices!
I believe that Stalin's methods at the time were the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation. In this essay I will cover the following points to back up my argument Russia's industrial state at the end of Lenin's era in 14, Stalin's rise and consolidation of power, Stalin's methods and policies on industrialization, collectivisation and form of a totalitarian state, victory against the Nazi's and becoming the world superpower.
At the end of 14 Russia was in a very awkward position, due to being the only country that was ruled by a communist government. Lenin intended to transform the Russian economy by wiping out all exploitation of man by man. Here was the problem that faced the new leader of the regime. In 11 as a result of the chaos caused by the Decree on land and War Communism policies Lenin introduced a new policy. The basic strategy was now to restore the economy a degree of capitalism and private enterprise. Introducing his New Economic Policy (NEP), Lenin argued that the road to socialism would be longer then originally thought. In the NEP Lenin left an intermediate strategy which contained a long-term problem. Should the mixed economy be retained indefinitely, as Bhukarin argued, or should socialism be accelerated a course urged by Trotsky. So any leader that was taking over power from Lenin would be faced with a problem. As we come to find out Stalin handled this superbly in the end and in my view he was the only man that could have taken the country forward.
Stalin was probably an outsider to take over the Bolshevik party after Lenin's death in Jan 14. He was totally eclipsed by Trotsky in the October revolution and never succeeded in winning the confidence and the friendship of Lenin. He was widely regarded as a plodder. However beneath Stalin's grey exterior, was a singularly ruthless and opportunist character. While posing as a moderate he waited for the opportunity to attack other candidates, like a crocodile patiently waiting for its prey to make a mistake, then pounce. The fact that unlike other candidates Stalin was not Western educated, put him above Trotsky in people's estimations. "He was a very skilful politician who had a superb grasp for tactics, could predict behaviour extremely well and had an unerring eye for personal weaknesses" quoted by a well-known historian McCauley. In particular he was able to capitalise on Bhukarin's inability to convert his plausible economic theory into a credible programme, on Kamenev's lack of vision and on Zinoviev's organisational weakness. Stalin, by contrast showed consistent skill in grouping around him, his own sets of allies men like Kalinin, Kuibyshev, Molotov and Voroshilov. It is clear that like other Bolshevik leaders, Stalin's ultimate aim was collectivisation of the land and industrialisation. He was prepared to do anything to achieve everything. Of course we cannot tell how Lenin, had he lived, or how Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Bhukarin, would have ruled the USSR if they had won the struggle for power. However it is very unlikely, from what we know about them, that any of theses leaders could have equalled Stalin's success.
Before Stalin came to power after Lenin's death in 14 he had held numerous positions within the party. The combinations of these posts allowed Stalin to monitor grassroots party appointments all over Soviet Russia, and thus build up an army of henchmen. This in turn, meant that he was soon able to control the election of deputies to the Supreme Soviet, the top legislative body, and to the Party Congress. This enabled him to have his 'own' people in place, so everything was channelled through him. This means he would have total control. This method Stalin used to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, which allowed him greater control and I doubt that had it been any other leader, would they have made such a drastic difference all the way through the chain. Stalin was very skilful in manoeuvring his people to positions where he wanted them, then changing sides if he saw a better option, therefore leaving them hi and dry. Stalin consolidated his position with his well-timed formulation of the theory of "Socialism in one country", for which idea he had earlier condemned Trotsky. This doctrine, calling for construction of socialist society in the Soviet Union regardless of international situation, distanced Stalin from the left and won support with Bhukarin and the party's right wing. With this support Stalin ousted the leaders of the "Left Opposition" from their position in 16/7 and forced Trotsky into exile in 18. As the NEP era ended, opened debate within the party became increasingly limited as Stalin gradually eliminated all his opponents. The murder of Kirov in Dec of 14 for allegedly plotting to replace Stalin began a period of purging and terror that lasted until 1. It was marked by execution of virtually the entire political and military elite and the incarceration in forced labour camps of millions of Soviet citizens. Using this method with the help of the Secret Police, Stalin established his personal dictatorship over the party and the country. To summarise Stalin was a ruthless man of caution, cunning and calculation. He was cruel and heartless, murdering anyone who appeared to stand in his way or might prove a later threat, but his plans were pursued with such vigour and forcefulness, fuelled by fear. Stalin believed that terror was a legitimate political weapon. The difference was while Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders opposed the use of terror against their own colleagues, Stalin had no such reservations. Stalin believed that terror was the most effective way of making people obey and work hard. I believe had Stalin not pulled Russia together by force to become an industrial nation, they would have been far worse off in the Nazi regime, as I have no doubt had Russia not industrialised, she would have been defeated in 141/4. So Stalin's methods had not only saved millions of lives from war and but also saved Russia as a county, its people and the heritage. It is fair to say that it came at a cost of several million lives, but I believe no one could have got the same result with fewer casualties.
Write your Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation? research paper
Although Stalin's objectives were very clear, they were very reactionary to the mood of the times. Stalin was very careful to back the most popular solutions to the many problems hotly debated in the 10's. Many people preferred this, as they longed for some stability after the years of upheaval. He always appeared as one who implemented the will of the majority. This was another method of Stalin to maintain power and achieve his goal of industrialisation and developing a totalitarian communist state, and again I doubt weather any other leader would have been clever and strong enough to use these methods. He was playing his colleagues, the ordinary people and changing his policies in order to achieve what was necessary. After a year of adrift since taking over and unmindful of the party's desire for change, Stalin and his men at the end of 18 struck out on a set of policies designed to turn backward Russia into a modern state. With his ruthless and vigorous action he launched forced industrialisation and collectivisation. The momentous series of economic and social measures included the establishment of a series of five-year national economic plans, the deportation and execution of hundreds of thousands of better off peasants (kulaks) and the forced entrance of the rest into state-controlled collective farms, nationalising of all industry and commerce, the regulation and manipulation of all financial instruments for capital accumulation by the government regardless of the people's impoverishment, and the centralization of all social activity. During the first two Five Year Plans (FYP's) of 1- huge hydroelectric dams were built as well as canals, mines and factories. They were built in record time, using free and prison labour. Managers, who were party members, drove the workers relentlessly because they risked prison and deportation, or even death for "sabotage" if production targets were not met. Russia and its people had never experience these methods's before as no one had introduced them, but to Stalin's credit the results they produced were phenomenal. During the first FYP 1500 big enterprises had been constructed. These included the Dnepregres, the Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical complexes, the Ural machine factory, the Rostov agricultural-machinery plant, which is still operating today, tractor factories at Chelyabinsk, Stalingrad, the Kharkov, car factories in Moscow and Sormovo, the Ural chemical works and so on. In 1, 8 million roubles worth of machine tools were imported, which represented 78% of all machine tools installed that year. However none of this would have been achieved had the idea of "patriotism" had not been introduced. People were continuously brainwashed by the government. By 17, all the basic tools of industrialization and of arms production were made in the Soviet Union. The economic growth between 15-6 was considerable. In 14 gross industrial output rose by 1%, in 15 by % and in 16 by %. Stalin officially justified forced collectivisation and industrialization by claiming that Russia was "threatened" by the Western powers, i.e. Britain and France, so it had to "catch up" with them in industrial production. During the early 10's Russia was starting to get recognised on the international scene on its economic strength and means of production. She formed economic relationship with Germany. In 14 she entered the League of Nations. This is a great reflection for what Stalin and his ruthless methods did for Russia. His methods to industrialize at any cost were completely appropriate, as at the time it was the only option as it takes much more then words and a change of regime to change people's mentality and work ethic. The establishment of totalitarian political control was completed with retrenchment in the social and economic realm in which Stalin instituted better methods of industrial management, a system of incentives and different wages and prices, the reestablishment of traditional procedures in the armed forces, more moderate general guidelines in the arts and the sciences, and a revival of the family as the basic social unit and the elimination of religion as a national cult allowing Stalin greater control. Hundreds of new cities and settlements were founded. By October of 15 all the rationing of foods was abolished as both industry and agriculture was ripe. In marked contrast at the time to the capitalist West, unemployment was abolished. In fact the economic advance gave rise to shortage of labour, which was overcome by millions of peasants entering Russian industry. Whilst the rest of the world was paralysed by the worst slump in history, the USSR under Stalin was taking giant steps forward. It can be said that Stalin dragged Russia up on its own feet. It was now self-efficient, as she could now rely on its own production both for agricultural and industrial materials.
Russia's victory over Germany in 145 I believe was a direct consequence of Stalin' rule and methods he used to get things done. In view of the initial collapse in 141/4 due to Stalin making the wrong decision and focussing purely on offensive war strategy, the extent of Soviet military recovery was nothing short of remarkable. Credit must be given to Stalin's own recovery and ability to co-ordinate military revival and make full use of the climate and size of Russia. Despite some losses of territory, Soviet Union still managed to out produce Germany in war material, the direct result of the FYP's of the 10's. Stalin matched his peak of his administrative efficiency during the war years and was able to make structural changes, which enabled Soviet Union to make a more effective use of production, mobilisation of Russian resources. This was achieved by Stalin breaking up the old components of Stalinism, the totalitarian control over the political government. He decided to dismantle them, and therefore giving greater power further down the line. This partial demobilisation of the command economy delivered overwhelming numbers of tanks, aircraft, and artillery pieces to any front of war they were required. This method was again something new, and empathizes the skill Stalin had to react to circumstances and come out on top. His more appropriate method and style of leadership and more effective use of economic resources undoubtedly led to military victory. So the man totally responsible was Stalin. Stalin was the only dictator to come out victorious in 145. Hitler committed suicide in the face of defeat. Franco and Salazar, kept their countries out of conflict. After 145 until his death in 15 Stalin launched a campaign of reconstruction and finally achieved his original objective of making the Soviet Union a superpower. He also extended Russian control, for the first time over most Eastern Europe and established a series of satellite states. The methods Stalin used to gain totalitarian measures were the fulfilment of Stalinism during his reign. The man behind the system grew in power and used this power to intensify the totalitarian nature of the regime. There was even forebodings in the West that this type of dictatorship might provide a general pattern for the future. This is in my view a very strong argument that Stalin's methods were the only ones appropriate at the time. Stalin's search for power was total and the methods he used were more extreme then had previously been used. Stalin was ruthless in his pursuit of power and efficient in his use of it, with the first point leading directly to the second. Ruthlessness and power combined to create a form of totalitarianism, which was more complete than that of Nazi Germany. Stalin created an industrial infrastructure, he cut down possible opposition by directly instigating purges, he changed the people's cultural and social perception and he pursued a foreign policy, which, with the occasional changes in tactics, had an overall strategy of making Russia a world superpower. Because of these methods and developments and despite the suffering inflicted, the Soviet Union was able to inflict defeat on Nazi Germany. I doubt that had any other leader been in charge would had done so, and had USSR become a superpower. In the last analysis Stalin could claim that his methods "Soviet Russia had become stronger as a result of his grandiose campaigns of industrialisation, collectivisation and social transformation." The very nature of the Russian national character allowed this to happen. Russian's never knew democracy as they were always repressed and ruled by barons and tsars. They never knew freedom or democracy, as most people being surfs the majority didn't know how to handle freedom, so they became puppets at the hands of a dictator. Lenin's attempt at free enterprise wasn't good enough for Stalin because it contradicted his nature, of a highly suspicious and ruthless dictator. Stalin eliminated all sense of the traditional religion, but people had to have someone to believe in and Stalin took over the role of God in many people's eyes. Stalin was the one who started the cult of worshipping the leader. The name Stalin means, "steel" and he certainly lived up to his name.
Please note that this sample paper on Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation? is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation?, we are here to assist you. Your research paper on Were Stalin's methods the only ones appropriate to the task of transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial nation? will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
0 comments:
Post a Comment