Stalin’s foreign policies were inconsistent and contradictory in the years 1924 to 1934. Assess the validity of this view.

Upon initial examination, Stalin's foreign policies from 1924 to 1934 might appear riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. He oscillated between collaboration and confrontation with the West, made seemingly erratic decisions regarding Comintern, and displayed a fluctuating approach towards Germany. However, a deeper analysis reveals a more nuanced picture, suggesting that Stalin, though perhaps opportunistic and prone to tactical shifts, operated within a framework of consistent overarching goals: securing the Soviet Union's survival and expanding its influence.

One of the most cited examples of Stalin's alleged inconsistency lies in his Chinese policy. Contrary to the communist ideal of international revolution, he initially backed the nationalist Guomindang (GMD) over the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after Sun Yat-sen's death in 1925. This support, seemingly contradictory to his communist ideology, can be understood by recognizing Stalin's pragmatic focus on Soviet security. The GMD, as the stronger force, offered greater stability on Russia's eastern border. Additionally, Stalin harbored doubts about the Chinese communists' ability to lead a successful revolution. This approach demonstrates a consistent prioritization of national interest over ideological purity.

Stalin's dealings with Germany further illustrate this point. The signing of the Treaty of Berlin in 1926, and its subsequent renewal, seemed at odds with Germany's capitalist system. However, this treaty, building on the earlier Rapallo agreement, served Stalin's goal of breaking out of diplomatic isolation and fostering economic ties crucial for Soviet development. The subsequent military collaboration (1929-1932) provided the USSR with access to German military technology. The shift in 1932-33, marked by a cooling of relations, was largely a reaction to the changing political landscape in Germany with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, posing a direct threat to the Soviet Union.

Similarly, Stalin's utilization of Comintern can be viewed through the lens of pragmatism. While initially sidelining the organization, perceiving it as a potential hindrance to his diplomatic efforts, he later re-engaged with it to purge dissenters and consolidate his control over foreign communist parties. This shift, though seemingly inconsistent, reflects a consistent aim: maintaining Soviet dominance within the communist movement and using it as a tool to advance Soviet interests.

Even Stalin’s seemingly contradictory approach towards collective security can be understood as serving a consistent strategic purpose. His decision to join the League of Nations in 1934, after years of opposing it, was driven by the escalating threat from Nazi Germany. Recognizing the need for allies, Stalin sought to build a united front against German aggression. This move, while a departure from his previous isolationism, was a pragmatic response to a changing geopolitical reality and the need to safeguard Soviet security.

It is important to acknowledge that Stalin’s foreign policy was not always a calculated chess game. His failure to effectively counter the rise of Nazi Germany, despite the signing of non-aggression pacts with Poland and France, suggests an underestimation of Hitler’s ambitions and a degree of wishful thinking about the potential for either a German-Western clash or a collapse of the Nazi regime. This miscalculation highlights that while guided by strategic objectives, Stalin’s foreign policy was not without its flaws and blind spots.

In conclusion, while Stalin's foreign policies from 1924 to 1934 might appear inconsistent on the surface, they were often underpinned by a desire to safeguard Soviet security and advance its interests. He exhibited pragmatism and adaptability, prioritizing national survival over ideological dogma. While not always successful, and sometimes characterized by miscalculations, his actions were ultimately reactions to the dynamic and often perilous international environment he faced.