probably Trotsky, the Czar was a corrupt, intractable, reactionary regime that was doomed to fail, empires were dead by the end of WW1 and it is doubtful any political party but the communists could have united the country.
Everyone hated Trotsky. He would have a chance in trying to centralize power like Stalin did; hell, Stalin only pulled that off because he had really powerful allies (Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc).
probably Trotsky, the Czar was a corrupt, intractable, reactionary regime that was doomed to fail, empires were dead by the end of WW1 and it is doubtful any political party but the communists could have united the country.
Could some sort of collective leadership be introduced?
Probably not, the reason Kamenev and Zinoviev got into a troika with Stalin in the first place was opposition to Trotsky. Though I would disagree with that being the sole cause of his centralizing power, honestly the man knew exactly how to play his politics, and he got to be how he was in many ways because he built up power so silently nobody knew he was doing it until it was too late.
It seems to me that most people were aware of how powerful Stalin really was at various points; that's one major reason why everyone wanted him as an ally, they saw someone who they could manipulate and then throw away. He knew everyone and had done basically every job the Party could think up, and most recognized that no one had as much experiences or had gained as many contacts as he did. Most of this wasn't by his own design; instead it was him merely doing his job extremely well and essentially becoming the guy who was essentially a jack of all trades. Problem was no one recognized that he was smart enough to use that power independently.
Stalin took background work that sounded boring and unimportant (like keeping the minutes at meetings), which made him obscure. Even his contemporaries tended to think of him as "that guy who robbed banks in the Revolution" despite the fact that you know... that kind of thing gave the Bolsheviks money they desperately needed and could not get from anyone else. Other jobs, like the aforementioned minutes at meetings responsibility, gave him the power to basically record events exactly as he wanted them to be remembered, but on first glance it sounds like a stupid, bureaucratic task nobody in their right mind would want to do.
The people who noticed tended to be the ones who were rife with issues themselves, for obvious reasons Trotsky noticed that Stalin was becoming somewhat of a problem but he was pretty much outmaneuvered. By the time people did realize that Stalin was powerful there wasn't much that could be done about it by most, and those who could Stalin got cozy with.
So, who would suceed Lenin as leader of Bolsheviks?
And what influence would death of Lenin in August would have on Civil War?
So, who would suceed Lenin as leader of Bolsheviks?
And what influence would death of Lenin in August would have on Civil War?
I think the October Revolution never happens. By the time the Bolsheviks stop squabbling amongst each other, find a new leader, and get ready for their coup WWI is likely over. I think Lenin's death is very much a best case scenario for Russians and probably the world. I think without Bolshevism Hitler never comes to power.
I think Bolsheviks on the periphery would be even more prone to split with the center, resulting in minor Soviet Republics with independent Red Armies. Historically, this pattern continued well into 1919 in the Baltic, Ukraine, and Crimea, and the independent Red Armies were as effective as the central one, but less deployable.
In August, the crisis could derail the transfer of units from the Western Screen to the Eastern Front, as well as large-scale conscription to support the Eastern Front. I imagine the Komuch might hold the Volga through the end of the year, pre-empting Kolchak's coup in November.
In August of 1918 the October Revolution allready happened about 9 months ago.