Analysis of Richard Pipes'" Why did Stalin succeed Lenin"

We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like Analysis of Richard Pipes'" Why did Stalin succeed Lenin" even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like Analysis of Richard Pipes'" Why did Stalin succeed Lenin" in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.

“It is my view that once the Soviet regime was in place and Lenin pursued his visionary program without regard to the almost universal opposition it aroused…the apparatus which he had created naturally rallied around Stalin, the most competent and popular Communist politician” (Pipes, 6) It seems that Richard Pipes begins his analysis on why Stalin came to power by pointing out that it was probably Lenin who paved the way for Stalin. Consequently, throughout Pipe’s analysis, he portrays the fact that Stalin succeeded Lenin firstly, because of the failure of the Bolsheviks in 11-0 to export the revolution to the industrial west, secondly, because the immense responsibilities of administering every aspect of Soviet life, thirdly because of the rise of an opposition to being ruled by intellectuals among workers, which made up most of the Communist Party, and lastly because of personal reasons. Pipes supports his first argument by reiterating his statement that the Bolsheviks took power by chance. He validates this by explaining that it was easy for this to happen because everything that was going on in Russia, which made it an easy target. Although they would have much rather taken over “better” countries such as England or Germany it was futile, they could not carry out a revolution. Pipes states “…they had to export revolution to the industrial West…” (Pipes, 65) Lenin’s failure in other countries � as Pipes points out, made it clear that there would be no October 117 anywhere else. (7) This gave birth to the slogan “socialism in one country”, it was consequently another stepping stone for Stalin’s rise to power. Through these affairs, Lenin became more and more trusting of Stalin. Perhaps this was not directly the cause for Stalin’s rise to power, but Pipes seems to insinuate that it was a catalyst. However, the failure to bring revolutions to other countries in Western Europe called for an enduring state and a “professional bureaucracy to administer it”. (74) Lenin’s links could not take on this sort of task, this was Stalin’s chance. Pipes believes that the fact that Stalin was talented and skilled in administrative powers, was crucial to his rise in power. This is valid, since in order to clasp such power like running a country a leader should be knowledgeable of the internal workings as well as the outside manipulations of the state. Knowing this, Stalin took advantage and realized that he could have loyal followers by enticing them with material rewards. By the time Lenin had learned of these developments, Stalin was well on his way to the top. The purges only made him feared but not necessarily more powerful, the truth is, he was actually losing power. The third factor that directed Stalin to power, according to Pipes, was the resistance to the communist system within the proletariat. The rising opposition within the Party, preoccupied Lenin, he decided to outlaw all organized dissent within the party and put Stalin in charge. Ironically, Stalin did not monitor opposition to the party but opposition to himself, later known as “factionalism”. Slowly, over time this allowed Stalin to install people loyal to him in the party’s ranks, creating a party for himself and less of Lenin’s. The personality factor was also in favor of Stalin. It was only until Lenin was close to death, that he realized that Stalin was becoming too swaggering � and it was already too late. Lenin was always close to Lenin and posted him among the highest ranks, on the other hand, Trotsky was never truly favored by Lenin. Trotsky was regarded as having a “gruff and arrogant” nature, and to top it all of he was Jewish. Obviously, Stalin did not have much to compete against.


Pipes confirms all of his premises as to why Stalin rose to power thoroughly. Many a time he inputs his opinions on why specific politicians took certain actions yet, supplies historical evidence accordingly. He’s three main points are plausible since, Stalin did in fact work closely with Lenin, used his skills to and talents of administration to his advantage, and most importantly new how to manipulate people through the power that Lenin gave him. Because Trotsky did not prove to be any competition to Stalin, this facilitated his emergence into power.


Richard Pipes The Three Whys of the Russian Revolution





Mind that the sample papers like Analysis of Richard Pipes'" Why did Stalin succeed Lenin" presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!