A comparison of these two are Both leaders saw that changes were essential, they knew that without reforms, the Soviet Union would grow weaker and weaker. Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s reforms were wide and touched almost all important aspects of the government. One important aspect is how Khrushchev and Gorbachev saw the past and future. When Khrushchev came to power he had a big problem how to replace Stalin and how to rule the country after him. Stalin ruled through a cult of personality and many people thought that he was irreplaceable. At “the Twentieth Congress of the Khrushchev attacks Stalinism and the Cult of Personality in the secret speech, he denounced Stalin and the terror of his regime, everything Stalin did or said was incorrect,
Joseph Stalin became leader of the USSR after Lenin’s death in 1924. Lenin had a government of abstemious communist government. When Stalin came into government he moved to a radical communist society. He moved away from the somewhat capitalist/communist economy of Lenin time to “modernize” the USSR. He wanted to industrialize and modernize USSR. He had overworked his workers, his people were dying, and most of them in slave labor camps. In fact by doing this Stalin had hindered the USSR and put them even farther back in time.
This essay will concentrate on the comparison and analysis of two communist figures: Mao Zedong, leader of the Communist Party in China, and Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union. The main focus of this paper will be to explore each figure’s world view in depth and then compare and contrast by showing their differences and similarities.
Khrushchev rose steadily up the party ladder, always combining his talents as an administrator with his technical training. After assignments in the Ukraine, he became head of the Moscow regional party committee, and in 1934 he became a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist party. In these positions he directed the construction of the Moscow subway. Although increasingly influential, Khrushchev was never an intimate associate of Joseph Stalin; he concentrated on technical rather than political accomplishment. After World War II he was brought back to Moscow, where he became ¡¥one of stalin¡¦s top advisers¡¦. When Stalin died in 1953, Khrushchev used his wit to thrust all his opponents for leadership, including Malenkov. He became both Party Secretary and controlled the government through his associate Marshal Bulganin, who he named Premier. He ruled from 1956 to 1964.
There have been many dictators through out history that have shaped the way we look at them now. Sometimes it’s the way that dictators came to power that people judge them on. Sometimes it’s how long they stayed in power, but it’s not just how long they stayed in power. It’s what they did to stay in power. These two men are some of the most infamous dictators for those reasons alone. These men are Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro, and they played a huge part in shaping the way we look at dictators today.
Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were similar in what they claimed to be, but in actuality they were very different people. Although Stalin claimed that he followed Leninism, the philosophy that Lenin developed from Marxism, he often distorted it to follow what he wanted to do. While Lenin wanted to make a unified society without classes, with production in the hands of the people, while Stalin wanted to make Russia into a modern industrial powerhouse by using the government to control production. Lenin accomplished his goals through violence, because he thought achieving Communist revolution was worth using violence, with a ‘The ends justify the means’ mentality. Stalin also used violence to accomplish his goals, however Stalin used much more violence than was often necessary to accomplish his goals. Stalin continued even once he was successful in accomplishing those goals, as he did not stop hurting people, but if anything it gave him more power to hurt people even more. But, at the end of the day, although Lenin ruled for only a very short time, he did raise the standard of living, though there maintained a large amount of hardship. Stalin, however, transformed the USSR from a peasantry to an industrialized nation in less than a decade, he did it on the backs of his millions of victims, who died because of his harsh policies and many purges.
These two men were very demanding in obtaining what they thought should be the rule of a nation by their own personal control. Stalin and Hitler were very close in the same way that they had an aggressive vigor to force a type of commanding dictatorship into their respective countries. Each had a special army that they put in high regard politically to where they were considered special police agents. These armies were under different orders, but their main objectives were to stop anyone who opposed, or were thought to be in opposition to the head of state. Also, both Stalin and Hitler had ideas to improve the education levels and economic prosperity of their own countries, each trying to put their own at the top of the world in industry and commerce. Although Hitler and Stalin were opposed to each other’s own strategies and political stance on being a world dominator, they were very similar in the way to which they fought for political power.
...dly, he missed the mark within his own people who wanted change fast and too much flexibility and ‘trust’ allowed room for the opposition to jump on the wagon to take over. The idea of his own administration and opposition party felt they were losing power prompted them to see Gorbachev’s weakness of trusting too much is pretty sad. Man with great potential leadership skill was lost because the general secretary’s campaign for glasnost (openness) instead prompted criticism of all kinds of abuses and inefficiencies.
Stalin had a viciously suspicious man who coined the concept of “enemy of the people.” (Khrushchev’s Secret speech, cold war documents, 87) Khrushchev in his speech bring up the effects of Stalin’s personality had on the progression of the Soviet Union like the falsification of cases in the provinces of innocent Communists, the empty information of spies everywhere, and to the doctor-plotters that Stalin has tortured confessions out of eminent Soviet Medical practitioners. (Khrushchev’s Secret speech, cold war documents, 87-89) Khrushchev’s secret speech for the 20th Party Congress did not stay secret for long, manuscripts were sent out to communist countries and even found its way into America. This speech was the fuel for anti-Soviet uprisings and resentment which led to the uprising in Poland and in Hungary in 1956. In order to lead the Soviet Union on a peaceful path that coexisted with the western world the image of Stalin needed to be squished to allow diplomatic relations with countries that were alike and not alike in the
Once Stalin was out of the picture Khrushchev was named the successor. Like Stalin, he climbed the communist latter behind the scenes. There is much to be said about Stalin and Khrushchev’s relationship but one would note that Khrushchev would turn out to be a genuine man of the people. Khrushchev came from a peasant family and was generally uneducated. However, he grew to power and popularity and saw the window of opportunity after Stalin’s unexpected death in 1953. Khrushchev was tough, resourceful, and independent, three traits that were important for rebuilding Russia’s infrastructure. Khrushchev gave a secret speech to the twentieth congress, denouncing Stalin of his crimes, paranoia, and cult-personality. Khrushchev proved to be an effective
After World War II America Great Britain and Russia all basically split up the territories that Nazi Germany once controlled. The conflict was caused by Russia continued view of communism and there spread of it in the new territories that they took control of after World War II
Khrushchev briefly mentions how Stalin thought about himself in the beginning of his speech in a neither positive or negative way before speaking inspiring words about Lenin. He simply reminds the audience that they saw Stalin as a godlike figure and Stalin encouraged this behavior. While being a godlike leader is the opposite of being a communist leader, Khrushchev doesn’t put a negative or positive spin on it, which effectively places Stalin in his speech before praising Lenin for doing the exact opposite. This helps Stalin’s name not seem out of place when he brings him back up to demolish the Stalin legacy and helps Khrushchev distance himself from Stalin because not everything was a criticism, making him seem like an unbiased third-party. When Khrushchev finally brings up de-Stalinizing the U.S.S.R. and the communist party, he does so by explaining the “glaring violations of revolutionary legality” (Khrushchev) when Stalin had his followers and high-ranking party members purged. He also explained the “grave perversions of party principles” (Khrushchev), the ways he destroyed the economy, and his dangerous mistakes of military tactics in World War II. He listed several specific examples of ways he personally witnessed Stalin order terrible military and economic plans and
Khrushchev was still a powerful and ruthless man. However, he was considered much more moderate than Stalin. Additionally, Khrushchev highly disapproved of Stalin’s purges. Throughout the duration of these purges, Stalin killed over half a million people who opposed his points of view. Lastly, Khrushchev highly opposed Stalin’s conduct of World War
Both of these men wanted Russia to move towards a Communist state. They both wanted to illuminate the bourgeoisie and make the entire country revolve around the working class: “From now on there is a new page in the history of Russia, and the present, third Russian revolution shall in its finest result lead to the victory of Socialism” (Sherman 211). Lenin, who was the predecessor of Stalin, treated the people of Russia as his close friends. In his April Theses, he made it clear that he wanted no support for the Provisional Government, as that was one of his decrees. The liberal Provisional Government favored capitalism over socialism. This was neither Lenin nor Stalin’s goal. Stalin went about reforming the Russian government differently after Lenin’s death. Stalin was focused on establishing his socialist envisions by any means necessary: “during the great Purges, Stalin ordered his secret police to arrest many foreign colleagues of Lenin. Anyone who opposed Stalin was considered a traitor and severely punished or executed. This is the opposite of what the Provisional Government
Stalin, Lenin’s successor, dramatically transformed the government of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined that the Soviet Union should find its place both politically and economically among the most powerful of nations in the world. Stalin worked to establish total control of all aspects of life in the Soviet Union. He controlled the government, the economy and many aspects of citizens’ private lives.
Politics has always been about image. A good image leads to power, it's that simple. Sometimes it is hard to draw the line between a leader who is genuinely interested in improving the lives of his people and one that is interested in filling a few more pages of the already crowded History book. A good example of this is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its transition time between 1953 and 1964. The tyrannical rule of Joseph Stalin in the USSR was finally over, and the nation sought a new leader; after nearly a decade, one man, Nikita Khrushchev, rose up from the ranks with new ideas for the nation, and an extreme anti-Stalin campaign. But was he truly enraged at the way Stalin ruled or was he using this image in an attempt to capture the same power as his predecessor? The link between the two leaders goes back many years, to nearly the beginning of the communist annexation of Russia. Even today, we find ourselves asking if the politicians we vote for say they will make a reform to actually help the people, or if they say it as an empty promise in a ploy to get elected or to gain power. Was Nikita Khrushchev a man for the people, or was he simply a puppet with motives unseen to the people that pulled his strings?