AHC/WI: Soviet Succession War

What if Lenin denounced Stalin shortly before his death, weakening Stalin’s position as General Secretary? Lenin did not have a clear successor, and with Stalin declawed and pretty much powerless, would it be possible for the Soviet Union to enter a power struggle and potentially a civil war?
 
What if Lenin denounced Stalin shortly before his death, weakening Stalin’s position as General Secretary? Lenin did not have a clear successor, and with Stalin declawed and pretty much powerless, would it be possible for the Soviet Union to enter a power struggle and potentially a civil war?

By the time of Lenin’s death his wishes did not play a major role and, anyway, it is not like he left a clear “successor”. And what “successor” means to start with? Formally, Lenin was just a Prime Minister and the most influential member of Politburo in which he did not held any special position (aka, was not officially a “Fearless Leader”). Stalin became PM only in 1941. He also managed to elevate his office of the Secretary General into the most powerful position in the SU: under Lenin there was not official head of the Party. So by the end of Lenin’s life Stalin already controlled most of the communist nomenclature and had a number of allies in Politburo thus making Lenin’s wishes rather irrelevant. Of course, he was not, yet, in a dictatorial position but he was one with a powerful tool in his disposal.
 
By the time of Lenin’s death his wishes did not play a major role and, anyway, it is not like he left a clear “successor”. And what “successor” means to start with? Formally, Lenin was just a Prime Minister and the most influential member of Politburo in which he did not held any special position (aka, was not officially a “Fearless Leader”). Stalin became PM only in 1941. He also managed to elevate his office of the Secretary General into the most powerful position in the SU: under Lenin there was not official head of the Party. So by the end of Lenin’s life Stalin already controlled most of the communist nomenclature and had a number of allies in Politburo thus making Lenin’s wishes rather irrelevant. Of course, he was not, yet, in a dictatorial position but he was one with a powerful tool in his disposal.
By successor I mean the next person to be as powerful/influential as Lenin.
 
By successor I mean the next person to be as powerful/influential as Lenin.
Well, Stalin became more powerful. The point is that by the end of Lenin’s life he was not in a position to appoint a clear “successor” orto prevent Stalin’s further raise.
 
Well, Stalin became more powerful. The point is that by the end of Lenin’s life he was not in a position to appoint a clear “successor” orto prevent Stalin’s further raise.
I believe we’re drifting too far off topic. My question is if it’s possible for the Soviet Union to have a power struggle around the time Lenin died and Stalin rose to power.
 
There was a power struggle, just not a military one. Stalin did not win by default after Lenin's death. It is somewhat possible for Trotsky while he still was in control of the military to try to stage a coup when it became apparent that he would be removed from his posts in 1925. But I suppose he was still sure to retain his influence by other means.
 
The problem in this case is that many party members knew Lenin's critic of Stalin. Stalin even offered to resign but his resignation wasn't accepted by the party. Stalin "critized" himself and after that promised to be softer and less harsh.

Trotsky on the other hand was hated by many party members even on the left wing: He was seen as an arrogant elitist who thought that everybody was inferior to him.

That's why Stalin was able to kick Trotsky out of power with Zinojev and Kamenev and after that he kicked them out with the right wing of the Communist Party.
 
The problem in this case is that many party members knew Lenin's critic of Stalin. Stalin even offered to resign but his resignation wasn't accepted by the party. Stalin "critized" himself and after that promised to be softer and less harsh.

Trotsky on the other hand was hated by many party members even on the left wing: He was seen as an arrogant elitist who thought that everybody was inferior to him.

That's why Stalin was able to kick Trotsky out of power with Zinojev and Kamenev and after that he kicked them out with the right wing of the Communist Party.

Stalin was the only one who had been steadily building up his support base: as a head of the Party Secretariat he was responsible for the appointments of the lower level Party bosses, their benefits, etc. These people had been his clients and loyal to him and not to the popular public speakers like Trotsky and Zinoviev.

Trotsky was not even excessively concerning himself with the army affairs leaving the boring details to his deputy. Not that he was seriously trying to make Red Army his loyal tool: with a possible exception of few high placed people (and even they were in question), not too much had been done about well-being of the lower ranks. Anyway, short of a direct military coup (which was extremely unlikely) the Red Army was not in a position to put somebody on the top because of its duplicated chain of command: no order was valid if it was not co-signed by a political commissar and who was responsible for the Party appointments? So kicking Trotsky out of power was not such a difficult task.
 
Stalin was the only one who had been steadily building up his support base: as a head of the Party Secretariat he was responsible for the appointments of the lower level Party bosses, their benefits, etc. These people had been his clients and loyal to him and not to the popular public speakers like Trotsky and Zinoviev.

He was the first one to figure out that whoever hires you is the boss, no matter what his title. It wasn't a "sexy title" like War Minister or Foreign Minister but a boring-sounding one. However, in the end, it was the one that counted most.
 
He was the first one to figure out that whoever hires you is the boss, no matter what his title. It wasn't a "sexy title" like War Minister or Foreign Minister but a boring-sounding one. However, in the end, it was the one that counted most.
Hires and provides your benefits. :)
 
Trotsky was not even excessively concerning himself with the army affairs leaving the boring details to his deputy.

He also viewed the Red Army as a emergency expedient during the Civil War and advocated for it’s replacement by a workers militia in the war’s aftermath, which earned him the enmity of the professional officer corps. So his advocated policies mean he isn’t liable to find much political support there.
 
He also viewed the Red Army as a emergency expedient during the Civil War and advocated for it’s replacement by a workers militia in the war’s aftermath, which earned him the enmity of the professional officer corps. So his advocated policies mean he isn’t liable to find much political support there.
He was actually successful in switching to the territorial militia destroying his own potential support base.
 
What reason does anyone outside of the party elite have to fight to the death over a feudalistic struggle for leadership between essentially identical positions .

A charismatic leader could well make it look more important to his followers than it is. If X gets the position he will sell us out to Imperial Lackeys and there goes the Great Russian Revolution.
 
A charismatic leader could well make it look more important to his followers than it is. If X gets the position he will sell us out to Imperial Lackeys and there goes the Great Russian Revolution.
Charismatic leader would be good for making the fiery speeches on the public meetings but absolutely helpless against the System which was already in place.
 
Charismatic leader would be good for making the fiery speeches on the public meetings but absolutely helpless against the System which was already in place.

I am assuming the said speaker is PART of said system. Also that the system broke down somewhat due to infighting.
 
Last edited:
A charismatic leader could well make it look more important to his followers than it is.
That would require followers outside the party elite and not to mention the other side will be arguing the same exact thing to the same group and the question of the ability to reach a large group.
 
Top