How significant were the personalities of the contenders to succeed Lenin in accounting for Stalins defeat of his opponents in the years 1924-29?

Authors Avatar

How significant were the personalities of the contenders to succeed Lenin in accounting for Stalin’s defeat of his opponents in the years 1924-29?

  Lenin’s death on the 21st January 1924 caused huge sadness across the country. He was a leader that would be greatly missed. After Lenin’s death, everyone was eagerly waiting to know who would be the next leader of the Soviet Union. In the years after Lenin’s death, there was no clear successor to his leadership. However, when Lenin was leader, Trotsky was always there for him, being his ‘main man’ and played a huge role in the Civil War, therefore everyone thought he would be Lenin’s successor. However, as well as Trotsky there were other significant contenders, such as Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, Tomsky, and Rykov, which created a huge power struggle. I believe that the personalities of the contenders were significant in this struggle. However, other factors such as personal and political conflict and with their different tactical skills were just as important.

  Personality factors were very important for whom to succeed Lenin, as they contributed to Stalin’s eventual success. Stalin was a simple but very clever and sneaky character, he could manipulate other contenders very well without their notice. Stalin was able to play on the other contenders weaknesses and defeat them. Trotsky was arrogant, popular and Jewish, which all of these in the end led to Stalin being able to manipulate and have him removed from the party. Also, some people had feared that Trotsky would use the Red Army to make himself a military dictator. Stalin was motivated and ruthless, and compared to the other Communist leaders who were indecisive and weak. Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin were described as gullible and were against the October Revolution. Therefore, personality factors led to Stalin being able to manipulate his opponents, so the personality factor is significant as it led to Stalin’s success and helped him alienate and eliminate the other contenders. To back up my point on Stalin’s personality and successfulness, one historian named Roderick Gordon said, “he was practical, efficient, hardworking and most importantly, invariably got results.” This quotation shows how strong is personality was and backs up that he was clever and motivated. Stalin also had severe help from Trotsky being ill, meaning that he had to step down from Commissar of War, making him less out of the picture and easier for Stalin to overpower him, even though Trotsky was most likely Lenin’s favourite to become leader after him. Trotksy also had many weaknesses which let him down to succeed Lenin’s place as he was sick frequently and was therefore missing committee meetings, which Stalin exploited and made sure that important decisions were made whilst Trotsky was off getting treatment. The fact that Trotsky was an ex-Menshevik was very important, the people saw him as a traitor and thought he only joined the Bolsheviks because he saw them as the group that was going to win. Stalin exploited this too. There were still a lot of anti-Jew feelings in Russia, and Trotsky was Jewish. Trotsky failed to take his opposition seriously, not seeing Stalin as a threat until it was too late because he was too arrogant and believed there was no threat. It could be argued he was gullible. When Stalin told him that Trotsky would not be able to make Lenin’s funeral he believed him not checking with anyone else for confirmation, when in fact he could easily have made it. He was also too self-confident which was a reason that led to his downfall and also he was unpopular in the Politburo due to the fact he was a Jew and an Ex-Menshevik. Roderick Gordon describes Trotsky as “he made only sporadic attempts to engage in battle with Stalin and at several crucial moments he was incapacitated by malaria, which entailed politically inconvenient convalescence on the Black Sea coast.” This quotation shows how he doesn’t seem to feel as if he has any threat against Stalin and shows his almost laziness about the situation. Zinoviev was chairman of the Executive Committee and reached the peak of his power in 1923, when he became one of the triumvirate. He was the least educated of the Communist leader and accompanied Lenin in hiding in 1917. Trotsky said that Zinoviev had adopted Lenin’s handwriting and opposed Lenin on the October coup. Lenin wrote “I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental”. One historian claimed this about Zinoviev “After Mussolini, he is the most despicable individual I have ever met!” However, he was described as one of the most powerful figures in the Soviet leadership during Lenin’s death. Kamenev was the deputy chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union. He was described as ruthless. Bukharin was a big supporter of the NEP where he was somewhat criticised for his change of emphasis explained by the necessity for peace and stability. He admired Lenin who referred to him as the “golden boy” of the communist party. Lenin described him as the “favourite of the whole party”. He was also described as “most able force amongst the youngest” and one historian called Stephen F. Cohen said “reputation for honesty, fairness and incorruptibility”.

Join now!

  Another reason for the significance of the contenders personalities causing this power struggle were Stalin’s position within the party which enabled him to control the party and gain his success. He was General Secretary and Head of the Workers and Peasants Institution, which enabled him to remove or promote people. Therefore, at any of the Congress meetings or within the Politburo, Stalin could make sure that he had a majority and be supported on crucial decisions. Stalin was brilliant in the bureaucracy and created a large power base for himself within that environment. He was able to manipulate other ...

This is a preview of the whole essay