The History of Russia - Essay Example

Part-I To what extent do you think the “Stalin Revolution” represented a break from the begun by Lenin and the early Bolsheviks? In what ways do you see continuity between the policies of the early Bolshevik leadership (up to 1928) and Stalin (1928-1953)? Be sure to consider specific political, economic, and social aspects of both Lenin/the early Bolsheviks and Stalin in your comparison? Answer At the turn of 19th Century, Russian empire was one of the expanding empires of the world having established its frontiers to almost one – sixth of the world. However, later internal conflicts, political tension as well as socio-economic difficulties of the country forced it to go for a bloody revolution which brought into power Lenin and so called Bolsheviks. Joseph Stalin was part of the Communist Party of Russia, which was instrumental behind the revolution of 1917. Joseph Stalin was one of the most important characters in the history of Russia after revolution. The revolution that was materialized by Lenin and has comrades finally resulted into establishing the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. He was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Russia until his death and rose to the prominence only after the death of Lenin. His rise to the power is a really interesting story because he carried forward the beliefs and values which he adapted as a child and as an adolescent. His era was one of the most important eras for Russia in terms of economic progress as there was a massive shift from rural based economy to more industrial economy within Russia. In order to assess whether the era of Stalin represented a significant break from the course begun by Lenin and his party, it is very important that we must first understand the circumstances behind the rise of Stalin to the power. Life of Stalin & Rise to Power Stalin’s early life wasn’t well as he was born in a family which was not financially well off however, as he grew, he developed himself as a person who has great liking for bank robberies, kidnapping, extortion etc. since his joining of the Communist party, he took active part into such activities and was jailed too. However, he continued to impress the leaders within the communist party for his superiority in executing such activities. The Russian revolution was largely a result of internal socio-economic conditions, which were mostly considered as oppressive and were against the interest of the common Russian. The Tsars of Russia was mainly behind creating political tension within the country which was also widening the class gap within the Russian society. (Wood 2005). This created an environment which was more conducive for an environment ready for a bloody revolution and Stalin was a direct product of such an environment. Though it is argued that there is no definite biography of Stalin however, whatever accounts are present suggest very clearly that class struggle as well as political environment shaped Stalin into a hardened individual which even went to digress from the very principles for which he fought for before coming to power. His poor childhood, deprivation from the material comforts as well as diseases at the early age clearly indicated the development of a personality which was going to be lot more violent and extremist in nature. (Litvin and Keep 2005). Stalin Revolution Stalin’s Revolution was a significant change from the policies which were adapted by Lenin and earlier comrades. If we assess the role of Stalin to the party level, one will easily come to the conclusion that from earlier 1930s he started to take the party under his control and by the end of the decade, party was considered as a tool in the hands of its leader. This was a very significant change from that of Lenin because despite being a Communist Party and serving the will of Lenin, Communist party still was a vibrant party with great room for debate and disagreement between the party workers. However, with the rise to the power of Stalin, these trends slowed down and political resistance even at the national level remained subdued because of virtually no opposition to the rule of Stalin. (Litvin and Keep 2005). One of the massive successes of Stalin was economic reforms, which were also radically different from that of Lenin and earlier revolutionaries. Before his rule, Russia was largely a rural society however, undertook industrialization, which ensured the gradual shift towards urbanization of Russian society. (Suny 2003). This was different from Lenin and earlier Bolshevik’s who were largely focused on gaining political support from the peasants of Russia and adopted policies, which suited most to the farmers rather than pursuing policies, which could make a gradual shift towards more industrialized nature of the society. On the political grounds, however, his era was really one of the horrible eras of modern times because he believed to have ruled the country with an iron fist. Slight opposition was not even tolerated and writers like Alexander Solzhenitsyn were jailed for years on very minor criticisms. This absolute control over power structure within the country was relatively stronger than that of Lenin whose era was not so fascist in its real sense. Stalin also advocated forced collectivization within Russian society, which was also not so strong a force during Lenin’s era. This social phenomenon was also to increase the strong nationalistic sentiments within Russian society to give it a collective unity and identity to rise as one of the super powers of the world. Corroborated by the massive industrialization, this effort was one of the well directed efforts to support the strong social cohesion backed up adequately by the economic stability as well as strength. In order to creative such collectivization, Stalin, however, went too far as he promulgated laws, which were not only used to tame the opposition but also keep a strong vigilance over the potential opposition that me be arising from any part of the country against the Stalin’s rule. This was, however, not witnessed during Lenin’s era which though witnessed a collective effort being made to create national cohesion but regulatory steps to curb any opposition were not put in place. Part II World War II was a devastating conflict that cost the Soviet Union millions of lives, both at the front and at home. Discuss the various effects and outcomes of the war on the Soviet Union, in terms of social issues and policies, economics, politics, and international relations as seen through the evidence and arguments provided by Catherine Merridale in her book Ivan’s War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 Answer World War II was one of the most important events in the history of the world which brought many nations face to face with each other. The impact of the war was tremendous not only on the world but on some specific countries too because the resulting socio-political impacts were so strong that they created permanent changes within many societies. The Book Ivan’s War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 is considered as a valiant attempt to present the life of common Russian men during and after the World War II and how Russia as a nation suffered from this war. It depicted how suffering and misery actually reflected into the lives of ordinary Russian soldiers as well as the common men during this period. Second World War was the moment which basically consolidated the rule of Communist Party within Russia. It also consolidated the role of Russia as an emerging super power of the world who is going to tackle another Super Power of the world in a cold war. The period reflected in Merridale’s Novel is therefore, is a beginning of the lasting changes to be made to the World order after Second World War. What is, however, also important to understand that the real history of Russia during the war is largely obscured in the planned myth of victory by Stalin for the motherland. Ivan’s War was an effort to unearth the real history of socio-political impacts of the war on Russians during the war. During the period of 1939-1945, almost 30 million Russians served the Russian Military and were believed to be fighting against an enemy who was more superior in the war skills. (GRIMES 2006). One of the most important aspects of this war was the fact that Stalin refused to fight a defensive was which invariably put Russian soldiers in riskier position and as such the overall mood to fight slowly dwindled because of certain death faced by Russian soldiers at the hands of Nazi Germany. Lack of proper training, food supplies as well as improper ammunition was one of the main reasons behind the de-motivation of the Russian soldiers. This was also partly because before 1939, the sophisticated weapons were only allowed to the secret military police of Stalin and as such the army was not provided live ammunition during their training sessions. What is also critical to understand is the fact that socio-political sentiments within the country were largely different from that of projected by the government of Stalin. From the social point of view, most of the men fighting in the army were those who started their life as peasants and were also largely unhappy due to the collectivization efforts of Stalin. The social impacts of this phenomenon were so powerful that soldiers fighting the war were ideologically far from the ideology of the Russian government and how it was projecting that ideology. (Rounding 2005). It was also because of this reason that the Nazi Germany achieved astonishing success in earlier part of the War because Russian soldiers did not resist much to them. Despite collectivization, the era during the War was the era which has not united the Russia as one nation, and as such there were very vivid differences among the soldiers besides lack of mutual trust between each other. The economic hardships faced by the soldiers on the war front were also something notable because soldiers generally were not provided the adequate food as well as supplies and even used their helmets to boil potatoes. Impacts of War The above discussion indicates that Russians fought their war under extreme conditions and were successful in presenting a collective resistance to the enemy which was far more superior. The impacts of this war were really far reaching as after the end of the war, there was a much planned effort to kick start industrialization as one of the means of producing employment and compensating those who suffered during the war. Further, this war brought in much needed discipline within the Russians as a nation because Stalin went on to issue orders, which even restricted the retreat by the Russian soldiers without specific orders. (Glad 2002). It is also important to note that women, emerged as one of the leading forces within Russia after this war as many including Merridale have argued that using women as snipers and pilots not only provided Russian women a direct exposure of war but also made them more prominent forces within Russian society after the war. (Kenney 2007). Further, just after the war, Russian government distributed the lands among the peasants and started strong educational programs to impart upon the education and knowledge to peasants who largely remained uneducated during previous regimes. This was also necessary because to support to large scale industrialization after the war, a highly skilled workforce was required. (Thampi 1990). Generally, arguments provided by Merridale are supportive of the collective effort undertaken by the Russians to defend their motherland although there were some very vivid differences between the ideologies of the government and the common men. The resulting socio-political changes after the war are therefore, largely seen as the outcome of a very planned but cruel effort to govern Russia from a dictatorship point of view. This type of rule, however, has proven more beneficial for Russia, especially after Second World War. Part-III Much attention has been focused on the problems and failures of the Soviet system. Ultimately, the system proved unsustainable for a number of reasons. Many scholars now propose that instead of asking why the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 we should consider how it was able to last as long as it did. Why did the Soviet system survive for nearly 75 years? What were its particular strengths? What benefits did the system bring to the Soviet population? Did it make any positive contributions to the world? Answer Encyclopedia Britannica defines communism as “the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.” (Encyclopeia Britannica 2009) Soviet Union was one of the largest Communist States of the world and was also the flag bearer of Communist philosophy in the world. The system which it has developed over the period of time was deeply rooted into the core of the Russian society because it was direct result of struggle from the very lowest level of the society. Most of those who took part into the revolution were those who were not fully satisfied under the rulership of Tsars and therefore, resented such a rule under the banner of communism. The first leader of Communist Russia was Lenin, who, apart from undertaking other reforms, also formulated the red army which proved one of the most decisive factors in keeping the system alive for more than 75 years. Over the period of time, it not only consolidated the grip of Communist party over the government within USSR but also tamed most of the opposition. Thus the unity of command in Government allowed Communist Party of Russia to further tighten its grip over the power structures in Russia. The ideological foundations of the country were also so strong that it allowed keeping the whole society under one ideology even by force. The ideology reconstruction of the Russian society, therefore, served as the founding pillar of the communist system prevailing in Russia and allowed to flourish and strengthen the grip over the power. After the revolution, the State relied heavily on the secret police in regulating the society and its citizens and therefore through a planned effort, the collective thought of Russian society was molded in such a way that it presented very little internal resistance to the system. (Daniels 2007). This system, therefore, was largely supported by well knit strategic units of Russian government, which allowed it to monitor and ensure the compliance with the different ideological parameters of the socialist system within the country. The socialist system in USSR got a very strong boost when Joseph Stalin came to power because his was the era which basically stamped the authority of Communism within the country and decided the future of USSR as a world leader and a super power. Further, the personal beliefs and value system of Joseph Stalin that ideas have the great power to influence the society (Ree 2000) therefore, State has the responsibility to collectivization is another important factor, which contributed to the strengthening of system within the country. The era of reigning terror and so called ‘great purge’ also resulted into the voluntary acceptance of the socialist thoughts within the Russian society and as such Russian society was not allowed to look for other alternatives. The forced terror, therefore, largely served as the consolidator of not only the socialist thoughts within the Russia but also reduced the chances of any potential resistance. Once this resistance was over, people considered the Russian system as the only system under which they have to live and flourish. (Siegel 1998) The victory of Russia against Nazi Germany in Second World War was also one of the decisive factors, which provided USSR an opportunity to advance itself as a prominent country in the world. With military as well as economic power at its back, USSR was largely seen as a strong influence over the world politics. The subsequent formation of other communist countries such as Easter Europe Block, China and Cuba further strengthened the authority of USSR as the torch bearer of Socialist philosophy in the world. Strengths and benefits of the system Capitalism though is considered as the most efficient economic systems in the world however, its resulting exploitation of the labor specially has made it a system which is largely governed by the self interest. The right to own private property therefore results into culmination of efforts, which tend to benefit few at the cost of others. Socialism and Communism provide an alternative to this and advocate the seizure of private property rights and giving all the resources of the country to the central command. The so called command economic system in Russia, therefore, proved beneficial for the Russians because Russian society was largely rural based where peasants tend to be exploited by their owners. With the increase in industrialization, this exploitation became more prominent and as such people revolted in favor of a system which promised to provide them bread and butter at all costs. (E. V. Ree 1998). In a way this system, therefore, attempted to remove the class differences and allowed equal treatment of all the individuals within the society. This system made a great positive contribution to the world because it provided a very viable alternative to the capitalism as an economic system. By removing the class differences, this system therefore served as a motivating factor for many countries, which considered USSR as a perfect example of equality of rights. Bibliography 1. Daniels, Robert V. The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia . New York: Yale University Press, 2007. 2. Encyclopeia Britannica. Communism. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism (accessed May 14, 2009). 3. Glad, Betty. "Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power." Political Psychology, 23, no. 1 (2002): 1-37. 4. GRIMES, WILLIAM. "In the Red Army: Called, Trained, Killed." The New York Times. 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/books/15grim.html (accessed May 14, 2009). 5. Kenney, Michael. "Victory and loss along the Russian front." The Boston Globe. 2007. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/11/27/victory_and_loss_along_the_russian_front/ (accessed May 14, 2009). 6. Litvin, Alter L., and John L. H. Keep. Stalinism: Russian and Western Views At the Turn of the Millennium. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. 7. Ree, E. Van. "Stalin as a Marxist Philosopher." Studies in East European Thought, 52, no. 4 (2000): 259-308. 8. Ree, Erik Van. "Socialism in One Country: A Reassessment." Studies in East European Thought 50, no. 2 (1998): 77-117. 9. Rounding, Virginia. "Ivans War: the Red Army 1939-1945, by Catherine Merridale." The Independent. 2005. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/ivans-war-the-red-army-19391945-by-catherine-merridale-516781.html (accessed May 14, 2009). 10. Siegel, Achim. "Ideologic Learning under Conditions of Social Enslavement: The Case of the Soviet Union in the 1930s..." Studies in East European Thought, 50, no. 1 (1998): 19-58. 11. Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2003. 12. Thampi, Madhavi. "Setting the Record Straight: Stalin, Second World War and Eastern Europe." Economic and Political Weekly, 25, no. 18/19 (1990): 1029-1032. 13. Wood, Alan. Stalin and Stalinism. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2005. Read More