To what extent did Stalin’s power over the party change between 1928-53?
During the years 1928-53, there is no doubt that Stalin had considerable control over the
communist party and the Soviet Union building upon the foundations of power laid by
Lenin. Over this period significant events, such as the Second World War and the purges of
the 1930s, were turning points in the nature of Stalin’s power over the party. By comparing
the strength of Stalin’s power from the beginning of his rule in 1928 to his death in 1953 we
can assess any changes that occurred during this time and also the nature of such changes,
whether they were fundamental, partial or superficial and the impact that this had on his
power over the party.
By 1928, Stalin was the undisputed leader of the communist party and the Soviet Union. The
collective leadership under Lenin was no more. However, he was still concerned that his old
rivals would conspire against him or his own supporters could challenge his authority. Stalin
had removed the powers and positions of his main rivals but his power over the party was
significantly increased by the purges of the 1930s. Stalin was able to remove the leaders of
the left, Zinoviev and Kamenev, through the Trial of the 16 in 1936. 1937, there was the Trial
of the 17 purging party officials that were accused of working for Trotsky and sabotaging the
Soviet economy. In reality, their crime was most likely criticising the Five-year plans. The
purge of the right was done through the Trial of the 21 where Bukharin and Rykov were put
on trial. Bukharin’s article “notes of an Economist” made clear some criticisms of Stalin’s
economic policies. This evidence, as well as the reality of the cause behind the Trial of the
17, shows that Stalin was prepared to remove any potential opponents that criticised him
personally. This shows a change in his power of the party in two ways. First, the show trials
were staged in such a way that other party members were intimidated by the power of the
state and established that Stalin was prepared to rule through terror. Secondly, by removing
his opposition, by the end of 1930 Stalin was the only surviving member of the Politburo
from 1924. This consolidates his power as he is recognised as the ‘legitimate’ leader of the
USSR. As a result, his power over the party changed as it was strengthened.
The purges widened in the 1930s, as Stalin looked to strengthen his power over
organisations that posed a threat to his dominance. In the late 1930s, the Red Army was
purged. Just some of the statistics: 3/5 marshals were purged and 35,000 officers were
either shot or imprisoned. The armed forces had been critical of the demoralising impact of
collectivisation and this posed a threat to Stalin, particularly as there was an increase in
defence resources as war was looming. Therefore, in order for Stalin to maintain his power
of the party he needed to ensure absolute loyalty was coming from the army as they had
the power and resources to overthrow him. As a consequence, this increased his power over
the party because he had prevented any potential opposition from a source that might have
had the power to overthrow him.
The purges were also purged. The head of the secret police was changed to ensure that they
were continually loyal to Stalin and didn’t have time to develop a strong powerbase. This
can be seen by Yezhov’s replacement by Beria only two years after he replaced Yagoda
himself. Yezhov had overseen the most excessive part of the purges and his dismissal was
partly due to Stalin’s need for a scapegoat, therefore ensuring that the blame was not
, placed on Stalin and therefore he was able to maintain his power and not accrue any
unpopularity. This increased his power over the state as well as the party.
Overall, the purges safeguarded Stalin’s position and power. It led to the emergence of a
new generation of Communist party leaders who owed their positions to Stalin and were
loyal. The purges indicate a fundamental change in the nature of control from 1928, as it
established the principle that Stalin had the right to use terror to anyone who was disloyal
therefore installing loyalty in the party and tightening his personal control.
The Constitution of 1936 illustrates a superficial change in Stalin’s power. The constitution
gave the illusion of democracy: every citizen was given the vote, there was freedom of the
press, religion and organisation. On the surface it appears the USSR was a democratic nation
but in reality, this was far from the truth and could be considered a propaganda campaign.
Although every citizen being given the vote was a change from before 1936, those that had
been previously denied the vote such as kulaks and priests now no longer existed because of
the purges as well as the brutality of collectivisation. The constitution indicates two different
levels of change. Firstly, the change was superficial there was no real change to the
democracy of the USSR: it still didn’t exist. Secondly, the Constitution gave Stalin the
opportunity to legalise his position making it much harder to oppose him and therefore
increases his power over the party. The constitution also was cleverly worded to foreign
government such as the US and Great Britain that the USSR had democratic credentials,
making them a good ally in the fight against Nazi Germany. This in turn gives Stalin power
over the state and party as he is seen as a democratic leader defending his country.
Although this evidence appears particularly convincing that Stalin had total control, it can be
argued that during the early 1930s, Stalin’s power over the party declined and there were
limits to his control. Stalin had personal limits, it was not possible for him to survey all of the
information and issues in the USSR. This situation therefore required Stalin to prioritise.
However, Stalin was able to focus power into subgroups outside the Politburo which he was
able to exercise firmer control. Through these subgroups, it became easier for Stalin to
monitor and ensure loyalty. Stalin also attended important meetings, where he would use
the intimating tactic of walking around the room whilst others spoke. Stalin was feared and
saying something disagreeable could result in execution. This was the example of Patel
Rychagov, the commander of the Soviet Air Force who complained of the poor quality of
aircraft. This change gave him greater control over the party by introducing a fear factor
therefore opposition was reduced, therefore increasing his power.
There is some evidence that the Politburo opposed some Stalin’s actions. For example,
when Stalin wanted to execute Ryutin, who had denounced him, in 1932, the Politburo
refused to agree and he was sent to a labour camp for 10 years instead. This particularly
notably since Ryutin accused Stalin of building a personal dictatorship and called upon
members of the Central Committee to remove him from power. This is a significant event, as
this posed a serious threat to Stalin’s power and had the potential to remove him from his
powerbase. This can’t be considered a change in his power as it must be remembered that
this was before the Great Terror so cannot be considered a change in his power due to the
context of the event. Nonetheless, even though Stalin was not able to have Ryutin executed,
he was sent to a labour camp, therefore removing the threat. Although it seems as if control
During the years 1928-53, there is no doubt that Stalin had considerable control over the
communist party and the Soviet Union building upon the foundations of power laid by
Lenin. Over this period significant events, such as the Second World War and the purges of
the 1930s, were turning points in the nature of Stalin’s power over the party. By comparing
the strength of Stalin’s power from the beginning of his rule in 1928 to his death in 1953 we
can assess any changes that occurred during this time and also the nature of such changes,
whether they were fundamental, partial or superficial and the impact that this had on his
power over the party.
By 1928, Stalin was the undisputed leader of the communist party and the Soviet Union. The
collective leadership under Lenin was no more. However, he was still concerned that his old
rivals would conspire against him or his own supporters could challenge his authority. Stalin
had removed the powers and positions of his main rivals but his power over the party was
significantly increased by the purges of the 1930s. Stalin was able to remove the leaders of
the left, Zinoviev and Kamenev, through the Trial of the 16 in 1936. 1937, there was the Trial
of the 17 purging party officials that were accused of working for Trotsky and sabotaging the
Soviet economy. In reality, their crime was most likely criticising the Five-year plans. The
purge of the right was done through the Trial of the 21 where Bukharin and Rykov were put
on trial. Bukharin’s article “notes of an Economist” made clear some criticisms of Stalin’s
economic policies. This evidence, as well as the reality of the cause behind the Trial of the
17, shows that Stalin was prepared to remove any potential opponents that criticised him
personally. This shows a change in his power of the party in two ways. First, the show trials
were staged in such a way that other party members were intimidated by the power of the
state and established that Stalin was prepared to rule through terror. Secondly, by removing
his opposition, by the end of 1930 Stalin was the only surviving member of the Politburo
from 1924. This consolidates his power as he is recognised as the ‘legitimate’ leader of the
USSR. As a result, his power over the party changed as it was strengthened.
The purges widened in the 1930s, as Stalin looked to strengthen his power over
organisations that posed a threat to his dominance. In the late 1930s, the Red Army was
purged. Just some of the statistics: 3/5 marshals were purged and 35,000 officers were
either shot or imprisoned. The armed forces had been critical of the demoralising impact of
collectivisation and this posed a threat to Stalin, particularly as there was an increase in
defence resources as war was looming. Therefore, in order for Stalin to maintain his power
of the party he needed to ensure absolute loyalty was coming from the army as they had
the power and resources to overthrow him. As a consequence, this increased his power over
the party because he had prevented any potential opposition from a source that might have
had the power to overthrow him.
The purges were also purged. The head of the secret police was changed to ensure that they
were continually loyal to Stalin and didn’t have time to develop a strong powerbase. This
can be seen by Yezhov’s replacement by Beria only two years after he replaced Yagoda
himself. Yezhov had overseen the most excessive part of the purges and his dismissal was
partly due to Stalin’s need for a scapegoat, therefore ensuring that the blame was not
, placed on Stalin and therefore he was able to maintain his power and not accrue any
unpopularity. This increased his power over the state as well as the party.
Overall, the purges safeguarded Stalin’s position and power. It led to the emergence of a
new generation of Communist party leaders who owed their positions to Stalin and were
loyal. The purges indicate a fundamental change in the nature of control from 1928, as it
established the principle that Stalin had the right to use terror to anyone who was disloyal
therefore installing loyalty in the party and tightening his personal control.
The Constitution of 1936 illustrates a superficial change in Stalin’s power. The constitution
gave the illusion of democracy: every citizen was given the vote, there was freedom of the
press, religion and organisation. On the surface it appears the USSR was a democratic nation
but in reality, this was far from the truth and could be considered a propaganda campaign.
Although every citizen being given the vote was a change from before 1936, those that had
been previously denied the vote such as kulaks and priests now no longer existed because of
the purges as well as the brutality of collectivisation. The constitution indicates two different
levels of change. Firstly, the change was superficial there was no real change to the
democracy of the USSR: it still didn’t exist. Secondly, the Constitution gave Stalin the
opportunity to legalise his position making it much harder to oppose him and therefore
increases his power over the party. The constitution also was cleverly worded to foreign
government such as the US and Great Britain that the USSR had democratic credentials,
making them a good ally in the fight against Nazi Germany. This in turn gives Stalin power
over the state and party as he is seen as a democratic leader defending his country.
Although this evidence appears particularly convincing that Stalin had total control, it can be
argued that during the early 1930s, Stalin’s power over the party declined and there were
limits to his control. Stalin had personal limits, it was not possible for him to survey all of the
information and issues in the USSR. This situation therefore required Stalin to prioritise.
However, Stalin was able to focus power into subgroups outside the Politburo which he was
able to exercise firmer control. Through these subgroups, it became easier for Stalin to
monitor and ensure loyalty. Stalin also attended important meetings, where he would use
the intimating tactic of walking around the room whilst others spoke. Stalin was feared and
saying something disagreeable could result in execution. This was the example of Patel
Rychagov, the commander of the Soviet Air Force who complained of the poor quality of
aircraft. This change gave him greater control over the party by introducing a fear factor
therefore opposition was reduced, therefore increasing his power.
There is some evidence that the Politburo opposed some Stalin’s actions. For example,
when Stalin wanted to execute Ryutin, who had denounced him, in 1932, the Politburo
refused to agree and he was sent to a labour camp for 10 years instead. This particularly
notably since Ryutin accused Stalin of building a personal dictatorship and called upon
members of the Central Committee to remove him from power. This is a significant event, as
this posed a serious threat to Stalin’s power and had the potential to remove him from his
powerbase. This can’t be considered a change in his power as it must be remembered that
this was before the Great Terror so cannot be considered a change in his power due to the
context of the event. Nonetheless, even though Stalin was not able to have Ryutin executed,
he was sent to a labour camp, therefore removing the threat. Although it seems as if control
