Lenins Testament: Trotsky Opposed Bolsheviks.

Trotsky,s experience in the Russian working class movement prior to 1917 was essentialially the experience of anemigre from the outset of his acguaintange with Lenin. He became an opponent of the Bolshevik in general and of Lenin in particular at first. He was definitelly on the side of the Mensheviks. He broke with them to take up a possition between the two Contending forses, calling for unity where unity was impossible, While reserving for Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The most bitter of his polemics on the wave of the revolution of 1917.He capitulated to Lenin as the Master revolutionary in the hope that in due time the Master,s would fall upon him.


(By Murphy John Thomas, Stalin London John Lante 1945, p 72)

I well remember that in one of my conversations with Lenin in 1921 he referred to Stalin as"our nutcracker" and explained that if the Political Bureau were faced with a problem which needed a lot of sorting out Stalin was given the job.

(Cole David M.Josef Stalin man of steel London, New-York: Rich& Cowan 1942, P 50. 59.

Wherever the situation seemed most hopeles, wherever in competence and disloyalty were weakening the cause on no matter what front and under any conditions, There Stalin was sent, With results we have seen outlined above. Talking advantage of the traditional hatred felt in the province for everything Russian, the social revolutionaires and their mensheviks allies were agitating for secession from the USSR and the setting up of an independent state of Georgia, as usal the task of cleaning up other peoples failures descended on Stalin taking ordjonikidze with him, he huried to Tiflis to settle the problem once and for all.


Voroshilov states during 1918-1920. Comrade Stalin was probably the only person whom the Central Committee dispatched from one fichting front to another, choosing always those places most fraugt with danger for the Revolution were it was comparatively quiet, and everything going smoothly were we had successes. Stalin was not to be found, but where for various reasons the Red Army was cracking up where the counter-revolutionairy forces through their successes, were menacing the very existence of the Soviet-Governement, where confusion and panic might any his own strong hands, he relenttlessly broke through difficulties and turned the corner, saved the situation.


In 1919 Stalin, then Commissar of Nationalities was also made Commissar of the workers and peasants inspectorate an organization created by Lenin to have teams of workers and peasants inspect Governement functioning in order to check corruption and bureaucracy.This method of mass democratic control embodied the essence of Lenins concept of how a proletarian state should function. The fact that he appointed Stalin as its director shows his fait in him as he testified in 1922, when Stalin,s control of two commissariats was questioned we are (Lenin wrote),solvings these problems, and we must have a man to whom any representative of the nationalities may come and discuss matters at lengt, where are we to find such a man ? I think that even Preobrazhensky could not name anybody else but Comrad Stalin.

This is True of the workers and peasants didectorate. The work is gigantic buth to handle the work of investigation properly, We must have a man of authority in charge, otherwise we shall be submerged in petty intrigues that the inspectorate could ever have worked given the state of the inherited bureacratic apparatus, is doubtful, and the degree of Stalins responsibilility for its failures is not clear, but Lenin,s open attack regardless of his motive could not  but serve to undermine Stalin,s authority as General Secretary and hence disrupt the party.


Lenin made no bones about his suport of Stalin in that ministry of the ministries, when replaying to the objections of oppositionists, He said: Now about the workers-pesants inspection, It is a Gigantic undertaking-It is necessary to have at the head of it a man of authority otherwise we sall sink in a morass drown in petty intruges. I think that even Preobrazhensky could not name any other candidature than that of Comrad Stalin.


But While Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representativf of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.


Lenin could not get along without Stalin even for a single day, Pestkovsky wrote, Probarly for that reason our office in the Smolny was under the wing of Lenin. In the course of the day he would call Stalin out an endless number of times or would appear in our office and lead him away most of the day Stalin spent with Lenin.


The same Pestkovsky refers to close collaboration between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin could not get along without Stalin even for a single day. Probarly for that reason our office in the Smolny was under the wing of Lenin in the course of the day, He would call Stalin out an endless number of times or would appear in our office and ledd him away most of the day Stalin spent with Lenin. What they did there I dont now, But on one occasion upon entering Lenin,s office I discovered an interesting picture on the wall hung a large map of Russia before it stood two chairs and on them stood Ilyich and Stalin moving their fingers over the northern part, I think acros Finland. At that period Lenin had great need of Stalin. There can be no doubt about that Zinovieuw and Kamenev had been waiging a struggle against Lenin. He (Stalin),therefore played the role of chief of staff or of a clerk on responsible missions under Lenin.


Trotsky made speeches (In the spring and summer 1919), which were so violent one could see he was frightened, defent, capture and deat began to menace the Soviet leaders. Lenin however kept calm. He did not indulge in the histronic of Trotsky, but instead called Stalin to the rescue, to put things richt at the chief point of danger Petrogrard what he had accomplished at tsaritsyn and viatka. He was asked to repeat at Kronstadt and Petrogrard. Stalin was a first rate administrator, The only  one Lenin could realy on. His judgment had been proved by now (1917), He was a useful man to have beside one in a tight corner, of Lenin,s colleagues he had emerged as the only man Trotsky excepted, fit for the Highest places.

While Lenin remained in Moskow to hold all the strings in his hand and Trotsky rose to new hichts as Commissar of war. The other Soviet Leaders were sent on special missions to one crisis spot after another as need arose. Lenin showed the same confidence in Stalin as a troubleshooter as he had in 1917. choosing him to deal with some of the most critical situations. Nor was his confidence misplaced in the chaotic conditions that were general in 1918-1919. Stalin did not lose his nerve, but showed he could excercise leaderschip and get things done, However rough his methods including summary executions without trial.

Stalin,s first assignment was to the key position of Tsaritsyn on the Volga (Leter renaim Stalingrad and now Volgograd), with the responsibility of making sure that the food supplies to Moskow and Petrogrard were not cut off.Twenty for ouhers after his arrival on june 6, He reported that he had dealt with a baccanalin of profiteering by fixing food prices and introducing rationing on. July 7 The day after the attempted Socialist Revolutionairy coup he reassured Lenin: Everything will be done to prevent possible surprises here. rest assured that our hand will not tremblei,m chasing up and bowling out whoever requires it, We shall spare no one, neither ourselves not others. But we,ll send you the the food.


Met vriendelijke groet,

Henk Gerrits


At the sixt Congres of the Bolsheviks Party, it was here on Stalins proposal obviously the approval of Lenin that Leon Trotsky was admitted to the party when Stalin proposed that Trotsky and his colleagus be admitted to the party. He was little concerned about the personal relations between Trotsky and himself. Here was the issue which was to form the great divide in the Bolsheviks ranks ( Could Russia advance to socialism without a revolution in the west ?)

From 1898, when Trotsky was 19, to 1917 he had hardly been in Russia, and until on Stalin,s proposal, he and his group were accepted into the Bolsheviks Party in july 1917, He had fought the Bolsheviks with voice and pen. and while Stalin was only the executor of the union (With the left wing the Internationals) It is one of the many ironies of the revolution that under his Guidance Trotsky was admitted into the Bolsheviks sanctum and elected for the first time a member of the New Central Committee where he stayed until Stalin in a diferent role expelled him.


When he joined the Bolsheviks party he did not regard it as a collective body which would have any power over him on the contrary. Trotsky regarded his joining as a means of acquiring power over the party and becomming second in command to Lenin. Characteristically Trotsky made a spectacular entry into the Bolsheviks party, He braugt with him into the party his entire mottey following of dissident leftists first as Foreign Commissar and then as war Commissar. Trotsky was the chief spokesman of the so called left opposition within the Bolsewiks footnote following his removal from the post of foreign Commissar. Trotsky publicly admitted the error of his opposition to Lenin at Brest-Litovsk and again offered unreserved co-operation with Lenin.

In August 1917 Trotsky made a sentsation political somersault after 14 years of opposition to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Trotsky applied for memberschip in the Bolsheviks party. I had been told for instance that Trotsky as a former mensheviks did in a sense-represent a kind of minority section in the Bolsheviks Party which he had joined only in 1917.


The disagreenment (Between Trotsky and the Bolsheviks), was fundamental and was never eliminated. It was now to appear again in puarrels with Stalin conserning the Red-Army. The fact is he (Trotsky), never really accepted the principal governing the relationship of Lenin,s party with the masses, because he was incapable of believing in the creative power of the proletariat.He was an Egoist wit all the over confidence of the Egoist. He was of the stuff of which dictators are made, and his conseption of leadership had as its premise the recgonation of his abilities plus a proletariat which would do as he ordered. They had to be organized, he would organize them as part of a machine under the control of a staff drawn from the middle classes, the intelligentsia and the army officers, with himself at the head. He was efficient,he admired eficienvy, buth he could never surrender himself to the revolutionary struggle would bring the working classes into the ranks of leaderschip.They could be educated in the long run.He thougt but not in the short. His intellectual snobbery ruined him as a revolutionary.

In his memoirsh British agent Bruce Lockhart writes: We had not handled Trotsky wisely at the time of the first revolution. He was in exile in Amerika, he was then neither a Menshevik nor a Bolshevik. He was what Lenin called a Trotskist-that is to say, an individualist and an opportunist. a revolutionary with the tempament of an artist and physical courage. He had never been and never could be a good party man.

Before the Revolution the Bolshevik and Menshevik wings of the Russian socialdemocracy were in perpetual conflict. The head of the former was Lenin, The highest autority among the latter was held by Plekhanov. Trotsky could recognize no other autority than his own. His temperament and his whole nature drove him to radicalism. It is remarkable that everything in Trotskiy character and carreer that helped him forward also contributed to his fall. Why ?. Because everything promoted his radical deflict his vanity.

It was entirely intelligible that the young Trotskiy should join the revolutionaires very soon. However, he lost the vivid concrete love and compassion for the indidual human being, More and more. He saw only the masses in whose name and for whose benefit he pursued his social and political ideas. The sence of being an intellectual revolutionary leader lifted Trotskiy in his own estimation above the masses he felt his superiority to all whom he met: he never feltt close to the masses whether Russian or Jewish, but enthroned himself, quit unconsciously in olympian aloofnes above real life about the masses he remained essentially an Aristocrat.

Trotsky,s habit of always taking up a standpoint of his own and his clearly paraded sence of his own superiority where bound when Lenin died, to lead to trouble. His first personal conflict then came in the politbureau and it was with Zinovieuw, Kamenev was entireley loyal to zinovieuw and in politics almont servile perusal of those articles which have survived from Stalin,s writings in Tharukhansk, shows that their autor,s distaste for the methods and the personality of Trotsky was not dimmed since their last clash in one of these he suggested with some truth that as a result of the years spent in pretending to stand above the party quabbles, Trotsky had become congenitally incable of sharing any one else,s position, But must at all costs differentiate himself from all other groups in vieuw of the fact that Trotsky had adopted such a pointless stand on the war-question, this suggestion is perhaps the most charitable of all.

Two more completeley contrasting personalities cannot be imagined Trotsky the revolutionary per excellence Brilliant as an creator and the arlest polemical writer of his time, But deficient in contrutive ability and congenitally incapable of working in harmony with others. One furter point in Stalins favor was the personal relations existing between Trotsky and the other leading figures for this.Trotsky had only himself to blame, Arrogant, Cynical, Contemptuous of mediocrity. His whole career had been dotted with violent outbursts directed against innumerable lesser personages.

Both temperamental and political factors were involved in Trotsky,s fall troughout his long revolutionary carreer up to 1917. Trotsky was a man of such strong individuality that he could never remain long within the ranks of an organized political party of a group. He had to be leader or nothing. He came into frecuent and bitter clashes with Lenin. I whom as late as 1913. He called that professional exploiter of every back waraness in the Russian Labor movement, adding the whole edifice of Leninism at the present time, is based on lies and falsifications and containing within itself the poisonous beginning of its own desintegration.

In this proces the factor of purely individual interest plays a much less important role than we ourselfs micht be tempted to believe. ani  mosily between individuals though it may often have resulted from opposition has never in any circumstances been the cause of it. And it is only in the case of Trotsky that we have to take into account a certain amount of otrictly personal element namely Trotsky,s opinion of his own importance which he possesses in a very hich degree.His very self willed nature, His intolerance of any form of critism he never forgets an attack on his ambition said Lenin and his disappointment at not being put at the head of affairs, without any associates have a great deal to do with his hostility ideology is the arsenal in which this hostility naturally equips itself with a perfect armament. 

He (Trotsky), Finds the support and complicity of a motley collection of enemys of the Sovjet-Regime and even without refering to his present political activities one cannot blind one,s eyes to eye to the dagger trutsts which have been aimed by him and his followers at the USSR and at the ommunist International. They really consisted and attempt to assasinate them, an effort to destroy them need one repeat that the personal factor undoubdtely very largely influenced Trotsky,s attitude ?

Even during Lenin,s Lifetime his incompatibility with al the other leaders became apparent"It is very difficult to work with this Comrade" Grumbled Zinovieuw, who however was more than once to be found in his camp. Trotsky was much too much of a Trotskiyst. Up to what point was it Trotsky,s despotic character his rancor at being neglected among the others instead of shining alone, his Bonapartism That induced him to break with the party and to construct for himself a sort of patchwork imitation Leninism and to start a political war with the more or less implicittiy expressed object of the formation of a new party, namely a fourth international ? It is very difficult to say; one cannot however, avoid remaking that Trotzky led an intensive opposition against the party in 1921 and again in 1923 and that in the interval in the year 1923 and that in the interval in the year 1923 in a speech before the Fourth Congress he defended all the points of vieuw of the majority on the thorny-question of the nep in a very concise manner. This did not prevent the Trotskiyst opposition brandishing the theorie of permanent revolution, from endeavoring to show on the morrow of the Congres that the revolution had come to a standstil and that the NEP was a capitalist degeneration, a kind of thermidor. These contradictory attitudes which followed one and ther at such a short interval of time seem to show the intervention of some artificial factor of an exclusively personal nature, nor was Trotskys personality an asset. He was widely disliked for arrogance and,t jack of tact as he himself admitted, he had a reputation for unsociabilhty indivdualism aristocratism. Even his admiring biographer concedes he could rarely with stand the Temptation to remind others of their errors and to insist on his superiority and insight scorning the colleciate style of Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders. He demanded as commander of the country,s armed forces unqliestioned obedience to himself,giving rise to talk of Bonapartist ambitions thus in November 1920 angered by reports of insubordination among Red Army troops facing wrangel, he issued an order that contained the olowing passage, I your red leader appointed by the governement and invested with the confidence of the people demand complete faith in myself. all attembts to question his orders were to be dealt with by summa execution. his high handed administrative style attrack ted the attention of the Central Committee which in july 1919 subjected him to severe criticism his ill concidered attempt to militarize labor in 1920, not only cast doubt on his judgment, but reinforced suspicions of Bonapartism. In march 1922 he adressed a long statement to the politburo urging that the party withdraw from direct involvement in maniging the economy The politburo rejected his proposals and Lenin as was his wont with Trotsky,s epistles scribbled on it into the archive, Buth this opponents used it as evidence that Trotsky wanted te liquidated the leading role of the party. Refusing to involve himself in the routine of day to day poletics frequently absent from cabinet meetings and other administrative deliberations. Trotsky assumed the post of a states man above the fray for Trotsky the main things were the slogan the speaker,s platform the striking gesture but not routine work his administrative talents were indeed of a low order.The hoard of documents in the Trotsky archive at Harvard University with numerous communications to Lenin indicated concenital in capaity for formulating succint practical solutions as a rule Lenin neither commented nor acted on them. For all these reasons when in 1922 Lenin made arangements to distribute his responsibuties he passed over Trotsky, He was much concerned that his successors govern in a collegial manner: Trotsky never in a team player, Simply did not fit, we have thestemony of Lenins sister: Maria Ulianova who was with him during the last period of his live, that while kallued Trotskys talents and industry, and for their sake kept his feelings to himself, He did not feel sympathy for Trotsky. Trotsky had too many qualities that made it extraordinarity difficult to work collectively with him.

Stalins suited Lenin,s needs better hence. Lenin assigned to Stalin ever greater responsibilities with the result that as he faded from the scene. Stalin assumed the role of his surrogate and thus in fact if not in name because his heir (Footnote), according to her (Lenins Sister) Trotsky in contrast to Lenin could not control his temper, and at one meeting of the Politburo called her brother a hooligan. Lenin turned white as chalk but made no reply.

But how about Trotsky (Budu-Said) ?. He never was corrupt, was he ? He always led an orderly private life with his wife, Natalie Sedov. He (Stalin) looked me straigt in the eyes and said with Trotsky its different.he,s not corupt thats true, but he carries wit hin himself another danger that a popular revolution can,t tolerate he,s an individualist to his fingertips, a hater of the masses a revolutionary narcissus. Read his books. He writes about us, about men, as those tailles, evil, cruel monkeys called men. He hated us and he despised us because he thaugt himself the most intelligent and the most brillant of us all for the sole reason that he knew how to wield his hand and his tongue cleverly. What was he diong in a revolutionary party ?. He repressented only that dying civilization whoh we be charged with replacing by another. a more fruitfull, one if humanity ever reaches the stage of humanism, it wil only get there trough a civilization of the masses either that, or it will arive now here, it will be destroyed en route was little of that subttely in Trotsky who could rarely with stand the temptation to remind others of their errors and to insist on his superiority and foresight his very fore sigh and less real because of its ostentatiousnes was offensive, he was the born Troublemaker.

Trotsky was full of his own personality. My father Beria found him (Trotsky), extremely arrogant in that respect the contrast with Stalin was striking in Trotsky,s company one feltt like an insignifigant worm. Stalin on the contrary, knew how to listen to someone and make him feel he was important. That was his strength yet Trotsky lacked Stalin,s day to day accessibility. He had the kind of Hauteur which peesed dozens of potential supporters. He was also devoid of Stalin,s tactical cunning and pugnacity, and there was a suspicion among Trotsky,s followers that their idol,s illnesses at crucial junctures of factional struggle had a psychosomatic Dimension.


In the final analysis the whole dispute, from the first clash at the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party to the purge of the Red-Army in 1938, Resolve,s itsel into a prolonged struggle between Revolution and counter revolution, although it is not thougt of in those terms until the final stage at the outset. Lenin and Stalin stood togetter against Trotsky and his colleagues on the question of which class was to lead the revolution after the conquest of power. Lenin and Stalin stood firmly for the signing of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty: Trotsky vacilated between no war and no peace and a revolutionary war, when the Soviet-Governement had no arms whit which to ficht. Stalin demanded that the Red-Army be led by leaders who were Bolsheviks. Trotsky handed over the army staff positions to recruted oficers of the czarist army. Trotsky proposed the militarization of Labor with the Trade Unions as compulsory state institutions. Lenin and Stalin stood firmly for the Trade Unions as voluntary organizations and against Labor militarisation. Lenin and Stalin decleared that socialism can be built in one country. Trotsky insisted that the Russian revolution must fail unless it was immediately supported by a pan European  Revolution. It is impossible to vieuw these issues in secuence without or serving that Trotsky practical proposals were disastrous and his opinions defeatist.

Trotsky was always in opposition. He would demand this or the other measurs at a time when the rest of the party leaders thougt that it would be dangerous. The trotsky theorie at thime may however be defined fairly clearly Trotsky,s fundamental contention was that there was an unbridgeable conflict of interest between the industrial workers and the Peasantry. He regarderd communism as the representative of the interest only of the nieuws of Lenin, and therefore also Stalin. For Lenin saw the basis of the regime of the dictatorschip of the proletariat at in political and social alliance between the working class and the Peasentry under the lead of course of the workers.


Stalin wrote "Lenin speaks of the alliance of the proletariat and the Toiling strata of the Peassantry as the foundation of the Dictatorschip of the proletariat. In Trotsky we find the hostile collission of the proletarian vanguard with the broad masses of the Peasantry. Lenin speaks of the leaderschip of the toiling and exploited masses by the proletariat.In Trotsky we find contradictions in the situation of the workers governement in a backward country with an overwhelming majority of Peasants.

According to Lenin, The revolution draws its forces chiefly from among the workers and peasants of russia itself, according to Trotsky, the nessessary forces can be found only on the arena of the World proletarian reolution. But what is happen if the World revolution is fated to arrive with some delay ?, Is there any ray of hope for ouher revolution ?,Trotsky does not admit any ray of hope for the contradictions in the situation of the workers governement can be solved only on the arena of the world revolution, according to thisthere is but one praspect for ouher revolution: to vegetate in its own contradictions and decay to its roots while waiting for the World Revolution.

From the welter of words, two main divisions crystallized one, one side Lenin and Plekhanov. On the other Martov Axelrod and the 24 year old Trotsky.

The jews i think are the most active peopleyou see. Lenin asembled the politburo. He was a russian himself. Stalin was a Georgian, and there were three jews; Trotsky Zimoniev and Kamenev. Further more Trotsky was a continual opponent of Lenin on all majorissues, Both before and after the revolution stil Lenin included him in the Politburo. Already in 1921 it had become impossible to work with Trotsky.

There was never at any time, any difference of opinion between Lenin and Stalin. On the other hand they both had bitter opponents in the party itself, especially Trotsky an obstinate and verbove Menshevik who considered that the inflexibility of the Bolsheviks afficted the party with sterility.

Lenin added:Trotsky and his like are worst than all the Liquidators who expres their thougts openly for Trotsky & Co decive the workers conseal the malady, and make its discovery and cure impossible, all those who support the Trotsky group are supporting the policy of lies and deception toward the workers, the policy which consists in masking the policy of Liquidation.

Lenin wanted to be certain of having a majority, He saw Trotsky as the only possible threat to his preponderance. At the end of 1920, during the debate on the Trade Unions he endeavored to enfeeble Trotsky and reduve his influence he went so far as to placeTrotsky in a ridiciculous position on the Transportation problem. It was urgently nesesarry to put the ruined railroads back into working order. Lenin knew perfectly well that Trotsky had no attitude for his task, and had no appropriate talent to acomplish it. Nevertheles Trotsky was appointed peoples commisar for transport. He brought to the task his enthousiasm, his zeal, his eloquence, and his leadership methods. But the only result was confusion. Trotsky conscious of his failure, resigned from the job.


His (Stalin), method of working is somewhat different from Lenin,s. Lenin usualy presented his these for discussion by the politcal bureau committee or commission. He would supplement his written document with a speech ampliefying the ideas contained in it after which every member would be invited to make his critical observations to amend or provide an alternative. Lenin would consult specialist on particular aspects of a problem and no one ever went to such lengts, to talk matters over with the workers individually and collectively.

Stalin on the other hand rarely presents theses and resolutions first. He wil introduce a prorlem or a subject requiring a decision in terms of policy. The members of the political bureau, the Central Committee or the Commission of which he may be the chairman are invited to say what they think about the problem and its solution. People know to be specially informed on this topia are invited to contribute to discussion wheter they are members of the committee are not out of the fruits of such collective discussion, either he himself will formulade the dicission or resolution or someone specially fitted will prepare the draft.

Stalin holds the vieuw that decisions made by one person are nearly always one sided. He does not believe in institutions, He regards the Bolshevik Central Committee as the collective wisdom of the party, containing the best managers of industry, Militaire leaders, Agitators, Propagandist, Organizers.The men and woman best acquainted with the factories, Mills, Mines, Farms and different nationalities comprising the life of the Soviet-Union, and the political bureau of this Central Committee.He reagards as its best and most competent part-if its members are otherwise they wil not hold their positions for long. Hens he believes in everyone having freedom to correct the mistakes of individuals and in there being less change of a collective decision proving lop-sided than an individual one. But once a decision is arived at the likes to see it carried out with military precision and loyalty throughout his career his victories have been triumphs of team work and of his native capacity to lead the team by securing a common understanding of the task in hand.

Supose today Stalin outlines a policy which he thinks should be adopted. Others criticize it not to weaken it, but to fill in possible holes. Stalin answers some amendments are accepted; The majority fail. The final deision is reached only when every one is convinced that no improvement is possible. Such is the real Governement of the Soviet Russia.

Stalin was less sure of himself, than Lenin, instead of saying i am richt unless you can prove me wrong. He would ask the advice of others and gradually form a composite opinions and decision. One that opinion was formed. However he was much more riged than Lenin about subsequent misgivings or oppositions.

He (Stalin), loved to hear the other members of the leadership expounding their vieuws, while he would wait until the end before giving his own, which would usally clinch the beschrive Stalin,s behavior at meetings of the politburo and the Central Committee. Stalin never precided at these: He smoked his pipe and spoke very little every now and than. he wouldt start walking up and down the conference room. Regardless of the fact that we were in session.Sometime he would stop richt in front of a speaker watching his expression and listing to his arguments white still puffing away at his pipe.He had the good sense never to say anything before everyone else had his arguments fully developed. He would would sit there, whatching the way the discussion was going, whenever everyone had spoken he would say well Comrads I think the solution to this problem is such and such, and he would than repeat the conclusion toward which the majority had been drifting.

Thats how it is with Stalin in terms of actual pwer, Buth according to all accounts he is far from Domineering in Dealing with his calleagues.Lenin, we are told Took a different attitude. He used to say:, Here is what I think our polici should, should be.If anyone has sugestions to offer ore can make any improvements, i am willing to listen, Otherwise let us consider my plan accepted.

Stalin is more inclined to begin, if the subject matter discussion conserns,s foreighn affairs, should like to hear from Molotov,Than he micht continue now what does Voroshilov think on the military aspects of the subject, and later he would ask Kaganovich about the matter in relation to industry and transportation. Gradually he would get a compromise opinion from the politburo, probably leading the discussion along the lines he desires, But not appearing to lay down the law, until the final conclusion is reached. Thus superficially at least the seems to act as a chairman of a board, or arbiter, Rather than as the Boss.

As a Rute, He was busineslike and calm;; Everyone was permitted to state his opinion. He adressed everyone in the same stern and formal manner.He had knack of listening to people attentively, But nly if they spoke to the point, if they knew what they were saying. taciturn himself,he did not like talkative people and often interrupted those who spoke volubly with a curt"Make It Snappy"",or "speake more cleary". He opened conferences without introductory words.He spoke quieitly freely, never departing from the substance of the matter he was laronic and formulated his thougts cleary.   With Tanks to Shukov Georgi