Hamlet wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Lenin and Stalin were using terror and purges for completely different ends though. Lenin was simply trying to consolidate the Bolshevik's grip on power in the midst of a civil war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could argue that part of the terror was for Stalin to personally consolidate his position, though. Different regime and size of butchery, same principle.
I agree that this was always a guiding principal for Stalin, but the 1937-40 purges really were a designed to crush any resistance in his efforts to rapidly industrialize the USSR. Changing a huge and extremely socially conservative country like Russia is no small task. Look at the massive social upheavals caused by the industrial revolution in the West, and that took a century (+); Stalin did it in a couple decades in one of the poorest (and largest) countries in Europe. This is certainly not to condone his use of terror, rather to explain why he thought it was necessary.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Stalin was using terror and purges to rapidly industrialize the Soviet Union, to radically change the economic and social fabric of a huge society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm. I mostly view the Yezhovchina as being something which grew completely out of all proportions, as it went completely out of central government control, as local officials and the public in general used it to their advantage, rather like in 1984. This probably eventually rather surprised Stalin in it's scope, and thusly Yezhov went the same way as his creation which he set in motion. I certainly don't believe that the terror or the purges in their entirerty were in any way necessary measures for mass industrialisation.
Valid statement. I believe (if memory serves) the Soviet historians Nekrich & Heller make such a point, that the purges took on a life of their own. Stalin was certainly not issuing orders for each individual or even what kinds of individuals to be arrested, etc. However, that the whole process wasn't therefore of his own design would be a mistake to assume. Like most good dictators, Stalin ruled not only through terror but through
divid et impera, so you get bizarre things like Molotov meekly acquiescing to the arrest of his wife. The mass arrest and murder of countless millions (15 million by recent calculations?) itself certainly did not serve to aid in the industrialization, but it did serve to get most Soviet citizens to do what they were told unflichingly and accept the extremely hazardous and poor living conditions, dislocation and mass re-settlements that accompanied "instant-industrialization". It had only been the decade or two before that Russia was swept with two revolutions, a couple failed revolutions and a bloody civil war; Stalin had few illusions about stability in Russia. Rather to say, he took no chances lest he end up like the last Tsar. Most convincingly, for as much as it would seem that the purges were rampantly out of control, Stalin was able to put a very rapid break on them in 1940 when he realized he needed to be concentrating on other issues, like potential war in his neighborhood.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
purge of more than 50% of the Army's officer corps in 1937-40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even this is in doubt. I hear conflicting estimates on this all the time, from 5% permanently removed, to, as you say up to 50%
I certainly don't believe it was a high as 50%. Granted, many officers were probably removed, but many were also re-instated.
That's a fairly widely-used figure. I most recently encountered it in John Keegan's WW II history. Be that as it may, all such numbers are calculations as no central authority was keeping stats. I think it'd be fair to say, "substantial".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
However, it is often forgotten that while the Soviet military performed badly in the Baltic in 1940, it performed superbly against a far more dangerous enemy in the summer of 1939.
Stalin's purges did indeed have an negative impact on the USSR's war efforts, but not nearly as universally or as critically as some believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. However, Stalin's poor leadership and basic elimination of such high rankers as Tucakhevsky certainly contributed.
Certainly. My point though was that while these eliminations were indeed significant, they are often used to back the theory that this is why the Soviets failed in the Baltic in 1940. If so, then there must be another explanation as to why they succeeded so well against higher odds in Mongolia. Something a little more complex was going on...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Lenin was very charismatic, and had wide popular appeal personally above the Bolsheviks' political programs and slogans. The famous painting of his giving a dramatic speech at Finland Station upon his arrival back in Russia in 1917 captures this charisma well. Peasant masses do not follow intellectuals, they follow slogans that promise them what they want - and Lenin did that. He certainly was an intellectual, but that's not what his mass appeal to average Russians was. He was a good showman too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin was persuasive, respected, and could relate to the masses in a way that others could not. However, I think calling him charismatic is going to far, as he was not naturally so. It was the way Lenin presented himself which made people follow him.
That's my definition of charismatic. I'm not refering to Rasputin or Geraldo Riviera, I mean charismatic as being able to communicate ideas and emotions well to large crowds, to "the masses". Lenin had that ability. Trotsky did not. I think Dannyevilcat got it right when he wrote:
I'll offer an entirely different opinion on this matter. Although Trotsky was the apparent successor to Lenin, the fact is that he was a relative newcomer to the Bolsheviks and for that reason, couples with his arrogance, he was particularily not liked or trusted despite what he accomplished for the party. Stalin readily found friends in preventing his takeover. Take Stalin out of the picture, and you still have a lot of commissars who agree Trotsky must never take over. Stalin was a master schemer, but, c'mon, so were his associates... Stalin was just better and better placed.
Trotsky had few friends in the leadership, and while he was technically very capable - far moreso than Stalin - he wasn't able to muster the many advantages I listed in his struggles with Stalin after Lenin's death. I don't think it's a fluke or a mistake that things turned out the way they did. In 1924 I would have guessed that Trotsky was going to end up as the embittered exiled intellectual railing against the failures of his rival's regime - and he did.
I mean how naturally charismatic are bald, middle aged, suited revolutionaries to you?
Hey - what do you have against bald people?
(Just kidding.)
And I think if you take a look at the appearance of most of the Bolshevik leadership, you won't find too many Calvin Klein models in there so Lenin in the 1920s probably came across pretty good...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Trotsky believed all the party dogma crap while both Lenin and Stalin were willing to toss it out the window when circumstances warranted it. Put that political naivite with Trotsky's very Jewish appearance (and an irritating personality that was scholarly but anti-charismatic) and you have a losing horse that I would not bet on. During his years in exile, Trotsky wrote brilliant analyses of the Revolution and Stalin's policies but he lacked the practicality, the pragmatism to convert ideology into reality. He didn't deserve the pickaxe in his head, but one shouldn't be surprised either that it ended up there and his inability to anticipate it is a further sign of short-sightedness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on all of that, but with Stalin out of the way, would the same thing happen? I'd wager not. None of the of the other leaders were as dynamic as Stalin was.
You're probably right that without Stalin none (or little) of all that would have happened - as I've said, Stalin was quite a thug - but that also implies that The USSR m,ay have turned out quite different. Would it have survived WW II without Stalin's stearn leadership? Could Trotsky or any other Lenin-successor have driven the Soviet people to accept the sacrafices of that war? Would the USSR have been nearly as prepared to face a Western industrial giant in open war?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Again, why then did such support not help him in his political struggles with Stalin after Lenin's death?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political naivety, as you said. However, if there had been any armed attempt at takeover, it wouldn't have been succeful.
I'm not so sure. Support for the Bolsheviks was strong under Lenin but was noticably waning in the 1920s, especially after Stalin ended the NEP. Industrialization doesn't just mean building factories, it means building infrastructure (roads, train tracks, electrical utilities, water resources, etc.) and moving millions away from centuries-old rural communities into barren living conditions and forcing them to work 12-16 hour days year-round (instead of the simpler sunrise-to-sundown that rural communities are used to), and it also means dispossessing millions from their ancestral lands (where Mom & Dad & Uncle Vlad are buried in the backyard) despite being told under Lenin in 1918 and 1922 that peasants could keep their lands. There were very many very angry people with little or nothing to lose by the end of the 1920s in the USSR; without a ruthless Stalin at the helm to initiate mass purges there may very well have been another revolution.