The question is whether or not Nikolai Bukharin would have been able to take power over the Soviet Union following the death of Lenin. What sort of POD would you need to have him triumph over the personalities of Stalin and Trotsky? Is it even possible? If so, how would his reign over the Soviet Union compare to that of Stalin in OTL?
Would Bukharin have been able to take power?
- Thread starter CenturionMagnus
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
Trotsky manages to be slightly less abrasive towards Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev in the early 20s, and their plan to essentially remove Stalin from any position of power is successful. Trotsky is, however, far too alienating a personality for their alliance to last for long, and so inevitably they're going to turn on him at some point soon afterwards. Bukharin is then the most senior of the three, and ends up in power, initially as Primus inter pares, then gradually getting to a more central role.
It's slightly easier later, as if Stalin drops dead in around 1927, Bukharin is basically the only senior figure of note left.
It's slightly easier later, as if Stalin drops dead in around 1927, Bukharin is basically the only senior figure of note left.
Honestly of all the possibilities Bukharin had the best odds of pulling it off thanks to being one of the less controversial and more senior people in the room. If you can kill Stalin before the end of the Russian Civil War that should do it and there's any number of ways to do that from battlefield mishap all the way down to him dying of smallpox at the age of five.
IIRC it's possible to get Bukharin into a position to take the leadership, but it requires a more complex POD for him to actually want it. The man spent politburo meetings doodling sketches of his fellow members. I've seen him referred to as the typical intellectual politician unsuited for leadership roles - in a democracy he'd make a fine interior minister, policymaker or senior mandarin, but never lust after nor seek the premiership.