Why Was Stalin The Dominant Leader Of The Soviet Union

How did Stalin come to be the dominant leader of the Soviet Union?

On the eve of Lenin’s death, there was no real or clear successor who would take leadership of the party. Even before his death Lenin himself recognised that there would be a power struggle between two of the most prominent leaders in the party, Trotsky and Stalin, which he expressed in his last testament (which was shielded from the public eye until the early 1950’s). In Lenin’s last testament, he even went on to briefly assess members of the party which could result in good leadership within the party. Through reading the last testament it seems clear that Lenin preferred Trotsky as a person, even if he does mention that he can be arrogant, and this can also been seen with
how Lenin acts with and alongside Trotsky which I will address later.
Stalin seemed to be on good terms with Lenin until Stalin had spoken to Lenin’s wife Nadezhda Krupskaya following Lenin’s appraisal of Trotsky which Krupskaya had cited, and Lenin certainly did not like the way Stalin had spoken to her. In short, he amended his last testament and was making it clear that Stalin had to go because he could not be trusted, was rude and was an arrogant. In the party, Stalin had always been perceived as a dull, mediocre and uninteresting person who was happy to get on with dull, mediocre and uninteresting jobs which mainly consisted of administration and he proved he was good at this which was why he was ultimately appointed as the General Secretary of the party among other positions prior to this one – a potentially dire move by Lenin following his death simply because it put Stalin in a position where could place his friends and allies in high positions in the pending power struggle. This then raises the question how exactly Stalin came to be the dominant leader, and I will address potential reasons which could be argued as to
why Stalin assumed power of the communist party and the Soviet Union.
To summarise, the type of person that Stalin was and his actions (or sometimes lack of them) played a large part of Stalin’s rise to power, alongside the weaknesses of party opposition and the weaknesses of his opponents. Although Trotsky could arguably be the main and real opponent of Stalin during the power struggle due to the fact that Trotsky seemed to be the one who would succeed Lenin, it would be wrong to ignore other important party figures such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Rykov. Moreover, I believe luck played an important part in the struggle for power just as much as Stalin’s personality.

His opponents however, were also important in how Stalin came into power.
It can be noted that each of his opponents, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Bukharin each had their flaws in the struggle for power – some of them being prominent in their bid for power within the party. Trotsky was Stalin’s main opponent and always seemed to be a favourite of Lenin’s which would seems obvious why Stalin would have such a vendetta against him, not to mention that Stalin was denounced by Trotksy during the October Revolution which Lenin and Trotsky had planned together – and so viewed as one of the more heroic contenders within the party. Trotsky was a gifted theorist and excelled as the commentator, critic, and executor of policies and was noted to be an enthusiastic and influential orator – often inspiring the loyalty of his
troops.
Each of the contenders arguably could have been a real threat to Stalin, which could explain why he felt it necessary to get rid of them during the show trials during the purges in the late 1930s, and that could have been due to their power bases. Being the head of the red army Trotsky could therefore be viewed as a threat because he could use the army to seize power if he really wanted to, due to the mass loyalty from members of the army some of which were members of the party – this however can be disputed due to the fact that not many members of the army were members of the Party and were unable to attend the Party Congress. Regardless of high praise from Lenin who described him as being “distinguished not only by outstanding ability”

To conclude one of the main factors in Stalin becoming the dominant leader of the communist was is cunning and sly personality alongside his tactics within the party – but it must also be noted that the opportunities given to him, his opponents and luck all played a very important role in his succession of power. Although his sneaky tactics were an important part, it’s hard to imagine whether or not he was able to gain succession through this alone and the question is then raised whether or not his personality was the main and dominant factor. I do believe it was a combination of all of these solely because the opportunities that arose were all easily manipulated by Stalin and he managed to make the best outcome for himself from these – for example the misfortunes of his opponents or the luck that was produced to him. Had Lenin not died when he had in January 1924, it’s hard to imagine that Stalin would have gained succession through personality alone even though it was one of the main factors in this.