Alexander Kerensky and the Provisional Government (PG) failed to solve many of the problems faced by the Russian population e.g. the problem of land reforms. However, the most notable of events that brought down the provisional government was the Kornilov affair.
The Kornilov affair occurred in September 1917 in which Kornilov, a Russian general who attempted to lead a revolution into Petrograd. While he did not succeed in his endeavour, the incident discredited both the PG and Kerensky, along with the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries who supported him. In addition, distrust grew between the soldiers and Kerensky. Some felt he had betrayed Kornilov and no longer wanted to fight for him. It was due to this loss of confidence in the PG, and those who supported them, that people began to indentify the Bolshevik’s as the ones who could bring about Soviet Power. In addition, the ease of execution of the October revolution could be attributed to the fact that the soldiers too, were disillusioned.
For Stalin’s case, it was weaknesses on the part of his opponents, most notably Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev. All of them underestimated Stalin and did not act quickly enough to halt Stalin’s bid for power. For example, Trotsky did nothing to expose Lenin’s Testament. The Testament would have meant the end of Stalin’s career; however, due to the efforts of Zinoviev and Kamenev, the testament was suppressed. Also, Trotsky got tricked by Stalin into not turning up at Lenin’s funeral, which further discredited him.
Zinoviev and Kamenev, on the other hand, allied themselves with Stalin only to be betrayed later. They thought that by aiding Stalin, they could get rid of Trotsky together. They underestimated him and thought that he was not a major contender for the role of Lenin’s successor. This was due to the perception that Lenin was nothing but “A grey blur which flickered obscurely and left no trace” who was famous for “industrious mediocrity”. As such, they did not see the threat he posed until it was too late. Stalin took advantage of his opponent’s weaknesses and used it to his full advantage, ensuring that he would be unhindered in his bid for power.
The next factor is the Personal Strengths of the two leaders. Lenin was a person with good organisational and leadership skills. He was also an excellent orator who could put across ideas simply for the uneducated masses to understand and was persuasive and charismatic enough to bring people around to his views. In addition, he had a strong, forceful personality and could force decision in the Politburo and the Central Committee e.g. the April Theses. He was also ruthless and cruel when he needed to be. All of these qualities combined made him a popular person who could bring about change in the eyes of the masses, and by using these skills he gained support both within and outside the Bolshevik party.
Stalin’s strengths lay not in the power of his personality or his speeches but rather in his skills as an administrator. His talents were recognised and he thus rose to positions of power within the party. By the time of Lenin’s death, he had been made General Secretary, was the head of the Worker’s and Peasant’s inspectorate, and was the editor of Pravda, the party’s magazine. His posts granted him access to nearly 26,000 files on the members of the party. His great influence over the party’s organisation and membership gained him many supporters within the party as he had control over who to appoint to other positions of power.
The third factor is the policies that both leaders put forth. In the case of Lenin, his slogans outlined in the April Theses such as “Peace, Bread and Land” and “All power to the soviets” resonated with the masses. By addressing the major problems faced by the general population and promising solutions in “Peace, Bread and Land”, Lenin gained much support from the Russian people. By putting forth ideas and solutions that appealed to the people, Lenin identified himself as a person who could solve their problems; in comparison to the leaders in power at that time, Lenin must have seemed almost Messianic in the eyes of the people.
For Stalin, his policies of “Socialism in one country” appealed to Nationalistic and Patriotic sentiments. Also, his anti-NEP stance and his push for rapid industrialisation gained him support from the workers, as jobs would be created for them, and other members of the party who feared that the continuation of the NEP would lead to an emergence of a rich super-class. Like Lenin, Stalin’s popular policies led to increased support for him.
The fourth and final factor is the favourable conditions during the time period in which they made their bids for power. In Lenin’s case, the one condition or incident that aided him greatly was Germany’s assistance in his return to Russia in February/March 1917. The German’s hoped that he would stir up trouble and thus hinder Russia’s war efforts. As such, they provided Lenin with a railway carriage and safe passage through Germany for his return from Switzerland.
The one incident that greatly helped Stalin was Lenin’s death in January 1924. Lenin died before he could make his Secret Testament, in which he criticized Stalin, widely published. Also, Lenin’s death allowed Stalin to position himself as the one who would succeed Lenin. At Lenin’s funeral, he assumed the role of chief mourner and portrayed himself as a person who had been very close to Lenin and was his chosen successor.
As we can see, it was a combination of the above four factors that led to the two leaders rise to power. Without the weakness of the opposition, Lenin’s personal strengths may not have been enough to propel him towards power. Without Lenin’s sudden death, Stalin the administrator may never have become leader of the Bolshevik party, and would have forever been viewed as mediocre. It can thus be said that all four factors were equally important and that no one factor should be given more magnitude in the examination of their methods and conditions used which led to Lenin and Stalin’s ascension to power.
