The first reason would be Trotsky’s over-confidence: even Lenin, in his Testament, reproached Trotsky for this flaw of his, saying that he is ‘distinguished…by his too far-reaching self-confidence’. In this way Trotsky severely underestimated Stalin, and this led to his downfall: in Source F, it is stated that if Trotsky had spoken up when Lenin was actually there (as it is certain Lenin would have supported Trotsky), he could have annihilated Stalin as a threat immediately, as the Party would very clearly side with Lenin on any such issue. However, Trotsky is said to have taken the idea that Stalin posed a threat to him as “a bad joke”, and thus lost his best chances to defeat Stalin
In addition, Trotsky had another fault which brought him down, and this one too was articulated by Lenin in his testament, stating that he has a “disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affaires”. The truth is that Trotsky did not realize to what degree the ‘rank-and-file’ of the Party was important: Trotsky was described as a theorist and military man, whereas Stalin was a man with many connections and people owing him favors everywhere in the Party. His post as General Secretary allowed him to keep such close contact with the Party members, whereas Trotsky’s post necessitated his constant traveling and thus eloignment from the Party members. This impression of aloofness was not helped by the fact that, through Stalin’s plans, Trotsky was not informed in time of Lenin’s death and was thus not present at his funeral: a very bad image for the potential successor to have.
A third, and perhaps peripheral, but nevertheless important aspect was Trotsky’s sickness at the time: he had contracted malaria recently at a ‘duck-hunting expedition’. In Source H we can see that, according to his wife, his sickness coupled with his situation put an extremely heavy weight on his shoulders, and Trotsky himself “ruefully noted that his illness could hardly have come at a worse time”, meaning that it must have had quite an impact on his performance against his opposition, definitely not good for his position in the Party at such an important stage.
Another somewhat peripheral aspect was Trotsky’s racial origin: he was of Jewish heritage, and as anti-Semitic feelings were existent even in Russia at that time, he himself doubted the wisdom of having a Jewish leader at the head of the country. This, and other, doubts lowered his own resolve and thus his drive to succeed. Stalin, on the other hand, had the determination of a tiger and would not stop until he had reached his goal. These qualities, or vices, in him are evidenced also in his later political career, where he stops at no casualties; no cost is too great for him to achieve his objectives.
Furthermore, Stalin had the dubious advantage of being wildly underestimated: as Party Secretary, his role was not immediately prominent, while being highly influential, and that his “inarticulate”ness would prevent him from gathering any significant support. This made Trotsky the favorite for the power struggle, leading two other candidates (albeit much smaller ones), Kamenev and Zinoviev, to side initially with Stalin, hoping to reduce Trotsky’s strength, thereby improving their own position. This reinforced Stalin in his legitimacy, and by the time the two switched over to the Trotsky ‘camp’, Stalin was already too strong and shortly afterwards, Trotsky was expelled from the party.
It is due to all aforementioned reasons that Stalin was able to secure a much stronger foothold than his rival, and ultimately oust him from the ‘match’: gradually, through various means of political slander and defamation, Trotsky, as well as Kamenev and Zinoviev, lost support in the party and were marginalized, with Trotsky of course being sent out of the country.
Thus it was that the rise of Stalinism came about in the globe, and set off a controversial, savage, and brutally efficient regime that was going to shape the world’s current affaires for decades to come.
Roham Gharegozlou, 1oIB
Page /
