Dictatorship and Totalitarianism (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Dictatorship and Totalitarianism
Introduction to High Stalinism
The period from 1945 to 1953 marked the peak of Stalin's authority over the Soviet state, party apparatus, and population. This era witnessed the most extreme expression of the cult of personality that had been developing throughout Stalin's rule. Stalin's personal dictatorship reached its zenith during these years, appearing absolute and unquestionable as he positioned himself as the heroic leader who had steered the USSR to victory in the Great Patriotic War. Presiding over a newly established superpower, Stalin exercised supreme authority whilst those around him competed for the privilege of fulfilling his will.
This period of High Stalinism represents a crucial phase in Soviet history, occurring immediately after the USSR's costly victory in World War II. Understanding this era is essential for comprehending how Stalin consolidated his power to unprecedented levels whilst the Soviet Union transitioned from wartime to Cold War superpower status.
Understanding dictatorship and totalitarianism
Dictatorship refers to a governmental system where absolute power is concentrated in the hands of one individual or a small ruling group.
Totalitarianism describes a political system demanding complete obedience to the state from all citizens. Under totalitarianism, individual rights and freedoms cannot exist; the state dictates all forms of human expression and individual identity is submerged into a collective mass identity controlled by central state authority.
Despite Stalin's formidable authority, the USSR never became entirely totalitarian during High Stalinism. Even at the height of his power, 175 million Soviet citizens could not be fully controlled by one man. Stalin's rule operated through complex bureaucratic structures, requiring a delicate balance between Party and government institutions, and depended on playing subordinate figures against one another to maintain his supremacy.
Post-war consolidation of control
During the war years, several aspects of Stalin's dictatorship had been loosened. Religious persecution had slackened, and appeals to patriotism, national unity, and popular spirit had replaced the intense fear that characterised the Great Terror. Wartime propaganda had even suggested a 'better world' would follow victory. However, any movement towards liberalisation was blocked after 1945.
Wartime institutions were rapidly dismantled. The GKO (State Defence Committee) was dissolved in September 1945. The military hierarchy, which had gained prestige during the war, was downgraded; Marshal Zhukov, the most celebrated Soviet commander, was demoted to a minor command position at distant Odessa. The grip of the dictatorship strengthened considerably, and the Stalin cult intensified to unprecedented levels.
The Post-War Reversal
The contrast between wartime and post-war policies was stark. Whilst the war had necessitated some relaxation of control and appeals to popular sentiment, the immediate post-war period saw a rapid return to authoritarian practices. This reversal dashed any hopes among the Soviet population for greater freedoms following their immense sacrifices during the war.
Stalin's personal rule
High Stalinism represented a new and more extreme manifestation of dictatorship. Stalin was ageing—he turned 66 in 1945 and had held central power for 25 years. In 1946 he suffered a mild stroke, which may have contributed to his increasing paranoia during the post-war period. His temperament appeared more reclusive, capricious, and unpredictable. Stalin's behaviour seemed to diverge from his wartime leadership style, though it remained consistent with personality traits that had been evident throughout his career.
Historiographical perspectives on High Stalinism
Historians have debated whether High Stalinism constituted a genuinely new phase or merely a return to earlier patterns of rule.
Moshe Lewin, author of an influential work on collectivisation, argued in 1992 that High Stalinism actually began in 1934 following the assassination of Kirov, rather than in 1945. Similarly, Stephen F. Cohen, biographer of Bukharin, adopted this interpretation. Robert Service, in his authoritative 2004 biography of Stalin, contended that much of post-1945 Stalinism represented a continuation of methods used before 1941 rather than a departure from them.
Historical Debate: Continuity or Change?
This historiographical debate highlights a fundamental question about the nature of High Stalinism:
- Lewin and Cohen view 1934 as the true beginning, emphasizing continuity from the mid-1930s
- Service sees post-1945 as largely a return to pre-war patterns
- Both perspectives question whether 1945 marked a genuinely new phase or simply intensification of existing practices
This debate matters because it affects how we understand the relationship between Stalin's pre-war terror, wartime governance, and post-war consolidation.
Political rivalries and power structures
Stalin consistently played senior figures against each other, a pattern that continued after 1945. Leading personalities including Molotov, Malenkov, Mikoyan, Beria, and Zhdanov moved in and out of favour according to Stalin's whims and the machinations of their rivals.
Example: The Zhdanov-Malenkov Rivalry
A clear demonstration of Stalin's divide-and-rule tactics can be seen in the rivalry between Zhdanov and Malenkov:
- Initial challenge: Zhdanov challenged policy directions during the war
- Counter-investigation: An investigation into Malenkov (Stalin's closest wartime aide) was established under Mikoyan
- First consequence: Malenkov lost his position as Party secretary; Zhdanov became Stalin's closest adviser
- Reversal: Malenkov and Beria conspired against Zhdanov
- Final outcome: Zhdanov's political downfall in 1948
This cycle of rise and fall kept all figures insecure and dependent on Stalin's favour.
Molotov wielded considerable power during and after the war but fell from favour in 1949. These rivalries and petty jealousies among the leadership helped to confirm Stalin's dominance by preventing any collective challenge to his authority.
The undermining of party institutions
The Central Committee and Politburo convened regularly, but Stalin frequently bypassed both government and Party structures to exert direct central authority.
Party institutions became progressively undermined. No Party congresses were held between 1939 and 1952—a gap of thirteen years. The Politburo was reduced to an advisory body that waited for Stalin or his spokesmen to dictate the 'official' line to be followed. Major decisions were increasingly taken in ad hoc gatherings of Stalin's inner circle rather than through formal Party channels.
The Erosion of Party Democracy
The thirteen-year gap without Party congresses (1939-1952) represents a critical indicator of how thoroughly Stalin had subverted formal Party structures. In theory, Party congresses were the supreme decision-making body of the Communist Party; in practice, Stalin had rendered them irrelevant. This undermining of institutional mechanisms left power concentrated entirely in Stalin's personal control.
Whilst Party membership and organisational structures remained extensive, members were increasingly unlikely to be committed ideologists drawn from peasant or worker backgrounds. The 'new men' were obedient bureaucrats who avoided taking initiative and steered clear of ideological debates. Inertia, characterised by leaving matters unchanged, became a defining feature of High Stalinism.
Key figures of High Stalinism
Georgii Malenkov (1902-88)
Malenkov advanced through the Party hierarchy from 1924, when he was assigned responsibility for maintaining files on party members in the Orgburo. He participated in the purges and show trials of the 1930s and joined the Politburo in 1941. During the war, he supervised aircraft production, and after 1945 collaborated with Beria on rocket and atomic weapons programmes.
Malenkov became a bitter opponent of Zhukov. In 1948, with Beria's support, he organised the purge of the Party leadership in Leningrad. Following Stalin's death, Malenkov briefly became leader of the USSR but was subsequently displaced by Khrushchev, who had the backing of Zhukov and the army.
Anastas Mikoyan (1895-1978)
Mikoyan proved to be an exceptional survivor—the only Old Bolshevik to maintain high position in the governing elite throughout Lenin's rule, Stalin's dictatorship, and their successors' administrations. Of Armenian descent, Mikoyan first encountered Stalin during the Civil War and supported him in the power struggle of the 1920s. He joined the Politburo in 1935 and served as a member of GKO during the war.
A Remarkable Political Survivor
Mikoyan's longevity in Soviet politics was extraordinary. In 1952, along with Molotov, he became a target of Stalin's planned purge but was saved by Stalin's death. He died peacefully in his bed in 1978, 25 years after Stalin—a remarkable achievement given the fate of most Old Bolsheviks who had challenged or questioned Stalin's authority.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
High Stalinism (1945-1953) represented the peak of Stalin's dictatorship and cult of personality, though even at this stage the USSR was not entirely totalitarian
-
Post-war consolidation involved dismantling wartime institutions (GKO dissolved September 1945), downgrading military leadership (Zhukov demoted), and intensifying dictatorial control
-
Historians debate whether High Stalinism was genuinely new (Lewin, Cohen suggest it began in 1934) or a continuation of pre-1941 patterns (Service's view)
-
Stalin maintained power by playing senior figures (Molotov, Malenkov, Mikoyan, Beria, Zhdanov) against each other in a web of rivalries and jealousies
-
Party institutions were systematically undermined: no congresses held 1939-1952, Politburo reduced to advisory role, major decisions taken in ad hoc inner circle gatherings, and initiative-avoiding bureaucrats replaced committed ideologists