April 22, 2017

Lenin Stalin And Trotsky- Personality and Views

LENIN CHOSE STALIN TO SOLVE PROBLEMS 

"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." 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 72 

"...wherever the situation seemed most hopeless, wherever incompetence and disloyalty were weakening the cause, on no matter what front and under any conditions, there Stalin was sent, with the results we have seen outlined above. "
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin, Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 50 

"...Taking advantage of the traditional hatred felt in the province for everything Russian, the social revolutionaries and their Mensheviks allies were agitating for secession from the USSR and the setting up of an independent state of Georgia.

As usual the task of cleaning up other peoples failures descended on Stalin. Taking Ordjonikidze with him, he hurried to Tiflis to settle the problem once and for all. "
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 59

Voroshilov states, "During 1918-1920, Comrade Stalin was probably the only person whom the Central Committee dispatched from one fighting front to another, choosing always those places most fraught with danger for the revolution. Where it was comparatively quiet, and everything going smoothly, where we had successes, Stalin was not to be found. But where for various reasons the Red Army was cracking up, where the counterrevolutionary forces through their successes were menacing the very existence of the Soviet Government, where confusion and panic might any moment develop into helplessness, catastrophe, there Stalin made his appearance. He took no sleep at night, he organized, he took the leadership into his own strong hands, he relentlessly broke through difficulties, and turned the corner, saved the situation." 
Life of Stalin, A Symposium. New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1930, p. 49 

"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 government functioning in order to check corruption and bureaucracy. This method of mass democratic control embodied the essence of Lenin's concept of how a proletarian state should function. The fact that he appointed Stalin as its director shows his faith in him--as he testified in 1922 when Stalin's control of two commissariats was questioned. 

"We are [Lenin wrote] solving these problems, and we must have a man to whom any representative of the nationalities may come and discuss matters at length. Where are we to find such a man? I think that even Preobrazhensky could not name anybody else but Comrade Stalin. 

This is true of the Workers' and Peasants' Directorate. The work is gigantic. But 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 bureaucratic apparatus, is doubtful, and the degree of Stalin's responsibility 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. "

Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 49-50 

Lenin made no bones about his support of Stalin in that ministry of the ministries, when, replying to the objections of oppositionists, he said: 

"Now about the Workers'-Peasants' Inspection. It's a gigantic undertaking.... It is necessary to have at the head of it a man of authority, otherwise we shall sink in a morass, drown in petty intrigues. I think that even Preobrazhensky could not name any other candidature than that of Comrade Stalin. 
Trotsky, Leon, Stalin. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941, p. 346 

... But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin. 
Pritt, Denis Nowell. The Moscow Trial was Fair. London: " Russia To-day," 1937, p. 10 

Stalin was directly involved in all of the major events of this time. He was already influential and indispensable to Lenin. He had signed the statement warning the right-wing members, who were agitating for coalition, and he had rejected the Menshevik proposal that Lenin and Trotsky should be excluded from a coalition government. He was to support Lenin strongly during the party crisis over the peace treaty with Germany. At the same time he was demonstrating his capacity for handling numerous responsibilities. 
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 102 

"Lenin could not get along without Stalin even for a single day," Pestkovsky wrote. "Probably 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." 
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 105 

The same Pestkovsky refers to close collaboration between Lenin and Stalin. "Lenin could not get along without Stalin even for a single day. Probably 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. What they did there, I don't know, 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 across Finland. 

...At that period, Lenin had great need of Stalin. There can be no doubt about that. Zinoviev and Kamenev had been waging a struggle against Lenin;... He [Stalin], therefore, played the role of chief-of-staff or of a clerk on responsible missions under Lenin. 
Trotsky, Leon, Stalin. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941, p. 247 

Trotsky made speeches [in the spring and summer of 1919] which were so violent one could see he was frightened. Defeat, capture and death began to menace the Soviet leaders. Lenin however, kept calm. He did not indulge in the histrionics of Trotsky but instead called Stalin to the rescue, to put things right at the chief point of danger-- Petrograd.
What he had accomplished at Tsaritsyn and Viatka he was asked to repeat at Kronstadt and Petrograd. 
Graham, Stephen. Stalin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1970, p. 59 

Stalin was a first-rate administrator, the only one Lenin could rely 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. 
Snow, Charles Percy. Variety of Men. New York: Scribner, 1966, p. 249 

While Lenin remained in Moscow to hold all the strings in his hand and Trotsky rose to new heights 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 1918-19 Stalin did not lose his nerve but showed he could exercise leadership and get things done, however rough his methods, including summary execution without trial. 

Stalin's first assignment was to the key position of Tsaritsyn, on the Volga (later renamed Stalingrad, and now Volgograd), with the responsibility of making sure that the food supplies to Moscow and Petrograd were not cut off. Twenty-four hours after his arrival on June 6, he reported that he had dealt with a "bacchanalia of profiteering" by fixing food prices and introducing rationing. On July 7, the day after the attempted Socialist Revolutionary coup he reassured Lenin: 

"Everything will be done to prevent possible surprises here. Rest assured that our hand will not tremble. I'm chasing up and bawling out whoever requires it. We shall spare no one, neither ourselves nor others. But we'll send you the food." 
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 98 

STALIN PROPOSED TROTSKY BE ADMITTED TO THE PARTY 

At the sixth Congress of the Bolshevik party, it was here on Stalin's proposal, obviously with the approval of Lenin, that Leon Trotsky was admitted to the party. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 101 

When Stalin proposed that Trotsky and his colleagues 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 Bolshevik ranks. Could Russia advance to socialism without a revolution in the West? 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 102 

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 Bolshevik party in July, 1917, he had fought the Bolsheviks with voice and pen. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 124 

And while Stalin was only the executor of the union [with the left wing--the Internationalists], it is one of the many ironies of the revolution that under his guidance Trotsky was admitted into the Bolshevist sanctum, and elected for the first time a member of the new Central Committee, where he stayed until Stalin, in a different role, expelled him. 
Levine, Isaac Don. Stalin. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, c1931, p. 130 


STALIN AND LENIN OPPOSE TROTSKY 

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 itself into a prolonged struggle between revolution and counter-revolution, although it is not thought of in those terms until the final stages. At the outset Lenin and Stalin stood together 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 vacillated between "No War and No Peace" and a revolutionary war, when the Soviet Government had no arms with which to fight. Stalin demanded that the Red Army be led by leaders who were Bolsheviks: Trotsky handed over the army staff positions to recruited officers 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 militarization. Lenin and Stalin declared 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 view these issues in sequence without observing that Trotsky's practical proposals were disastrous and his opinions defeatist. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 156 

Trotsky was always in opposition. He would demand this or the other measure at a time when the rest of the party leaders thought that it would be dangerous. The Trotskyist theory at time 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 regarded Communism as the representative of the interests only of the industrial workers. He wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat that was directed also against the peasantry. In this he was diametrically opposed to the views of Lenin, and therefore also of Stalin; for Lenin saw the basis of the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat in a political and social alliance between the working-class and the peasantry--under the lead, of course, of the workers. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 132 

Stalin set the issue "Leninism vs. Trotskyism." 

Stalin wrote, "Lenin speaks of the alliance of the proletariat and the toiling strata of the peasantry as the foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Trotsky we find the "hostile collision" of the "proletarian Vanguard" with "the broad masses of the peasantry." 

Lenin speaks of the leadership of the toiling and exploited masses by the proletariat. In Trotsky we find "contradictions in the situation of the workers' government 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 necessary forces can be found only "on the arena of the world proletarian Revolution." 

But what is to happen if the world Revolution is fated to arrive with some delay? Is there any ray of hope for our Revolution? Trotsky does not admit any ray of hope, for "the contradictions in the situation of the workers' government...can be solved only...on the arena of the world Revolution." According to this there is but one prospect for our Revolution: to vegetate in its own contradictions and decay to its roots while waiting for the world Revolution. 

Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 157 

From the welter of words, two main divisions crystallized; on one side Lenin and Plekhanov, on the other Martov, Axelrod, and the 24 year old Trotsky. 
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 19 

The Jews, I think, are the most active people. You see, Lenin assembled the Politburo: he was a Russian himself, Stalin was a Georgian, and there were three Jews--Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev. Furthermore, Trotsky was a continual opponent of Lenin on all major issues both before and after the Revolution. Still, Lenin included him in the Politburo. 

Already in 1921 it had become impossible to work with Trotsky. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 126 

Trotsky was a crook, a 100 percent crook,... 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 377 

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 verbose Menshevik, who considered that the inflexibility of the Bolsheviks afflicted the Party with sterility. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 30 

Lenin added: "Trotsky and his like are worst than all the liquidators who express their thoughts openly--for Trotsky & Co. deceive the workers, conceal the malady, and make its discovery and cure impossible. All those who support the Trotsky group are supporting the policy of lies and deception towards the workers, the policy which consists in masking the policy of liquidation." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 45 

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 reduce his influence. He went so far as to place Trotsky in a ridiculous position on the transportation problem. It was urgently necessary to put the ruined railroads back into working order. Lenin knew perfectly well that Trotsky had no aptitude for this task and had no appropriate talent to accomplish it. Nevertheless Trotsky was appointed people's commissar for transport. He brought to the task his enthusiasm, his zeal, his eloquence, and his leadership methods, but the only result was confusion. Trotsky, conscious of his failure, resigned from the job. 

Bazhanov, Boris. Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, c1990, p. 26 


STALIN’S STYLE OF LEADING DIFFERS FROM LENIN’S 

His [Stalin] method of working is somewhat different from Lenin's. Lenin usually presented his "theses" for discussion by the Political Bureau, committee, or commission. He would supplement his written document with a speech amplifying 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 specialists on particular aspects of a problem, and no one ever went to such lengths to talk matters over with the workers individually and collectively. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 172 


Stalin on the other hand rarely presents theses and resolutions first. He will introduce a "problem" 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 known to be specially informed on the topic are invited to contribute to discussion, whether they are members of the committee are not. Out of the fruits of such collective discussion, either he himself will formulate the decision or resolution, or someone specially fitted will prepare the draft. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 172 

Stalin holds the view that decisions made by one person are nearly always one-sided. He does not believe in "intuition's." He regards the Bolshevik Central Committee as the collective wisdom of the Party, containing the best managers of industry, military leaders, agitators, propagandists, organizers, the men and women 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 regards as its best and most competent part. If its members are otherwise they will not hold their positions for long. Hence he believes in everyone having freedom to correct the mistakes of individuals, and in there being less chance of a collective decision proving lop-sided than an individual one. But once a decision is arrived at he 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. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 172 

Suppose 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 decision is reached only when everyone is convinced that no improvement is possible. Such is the real government of Soviet Russia. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 103 

Stalin was less sure of himself than Lenin. Instead of saying, "I am right unless you can prove me wrong," he would ask the advice of others and gradually form a composite opinion and decision. Once that opinion was formed, however, he was much more rigid than Lenin about subsequent misgivings or opposition. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 164 

He [Stalin] loved to hear the other members of the leadership expounding their views, while he would wait until the end before giving his own, which would usually clinch the matter. 
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 220 

Bazhanov goes on to describe Stalin's behavior at meetings of the Politburo and the Central Committee. Stalin never presided at these:
"He smoked his pipe and spoke very little. Every now and then he would start walking up and down the conference room regardless of the fact that we were in session. Sometimes he would stop right in front of a speaker, watching his expression and listing to his argument while still puffing away at his pipe....
He had the good sense never to say anything before everyone else had his argument fully developed. He would sit there, watching the way the discussion was going. Whenever everyone had spoken, he would say: "Well, comrades, I think the solution to this problem is such and such"--and he would then repeat the conclusions toward which the majority had been drifting." 
Bullock, Alan. Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. New York: Knopf, 1992, p. 180 

That's how it is with Stalin, in terms of actual power, but according to all accounts he is far from domineering in dealing with his colleagues. Lenin, we are told, took a different attitude. He used to say: "Here is what I think our policy should be. If anyone has suggestions to offer or can make any improvements, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, let us consider my plan adopted."

Stalin is more inclined to begin, if the subject matter discussion concerns foreign affairs: "I should like to hear from Molotov." Then, he might 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, he seems to act as a chairman of a board, or arbiter, rather than as the boss. 
Duranty, Walter. Stalin & Co. New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1949, p. 90 

As a rule, he was businesslike and calm; everybody was permitted to state his opinion. He addressed everyone in the same stern and formal manner. He had the knack of listening to people attentively, but only 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 "speak more clearly." He opened conferences without introductory words. He spoke quietly, freely, never departing from the substance of the matter. He was laconic and formulated his thoughts clearly. 
Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 364 

According to Bazhanov, who served for several years as a junior secretary in the Political Bureau, Stalin at the meetings of this high tribunal maintains his usual reserve. He seldom generalizes. He sees only concrete problems and seeks practical solutions. He attacks few questions and rarely makes mistakes.
"At the meetings of the Political Bureau," he writes in his revelations, "I always had the impression that Stalin was much more inclined to follow events than to direct them. During discussions he would keep silent and listen attentively. He never would give his opinion until the debate was over and then would propose in a few words, as if it were his own idea, the solution on which the majority of his assistants had already agreed. For that reason his opinion was ordinarily adopted.
Stalin is not imaginative, but he is steadfast. He is not brilliant, but he knows his limitations. He is not universal; he is single-tracked. These properties may be defects, but in Stalin's position they are sources of strength. He is a "big business man," a type new in Russian political life. He is the carrier of that modern "ism" which has invaded the Old World--Americanism. 
Levine, Isaac Don. Stalin. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, c1931, p. 337-338 

LENIN PREACHED DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM 

Loose talk, endless debate, public discussion, and voting on goals and tactics, perpetual compromise in the Democratic tradition among factions within and with critics outside, constant efforts to win more converts by opportunistic popular appeals -- all these things, held Lenin, would be fatal to the enterprise.... What was needed was a centralized, regimented conspiracy of those who would give all their time to the crusade and would be supported and financed by party funds.... Elected delegates of local groups would then meet in Congress and decide by discussion what the party line should be. But even then, once a decision should be voted, all members must carry it out at any cost and regardless of their personal views. This principle of organization came to be known later as "Democratic centralism." 
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 36 

... but, according to party rules, largely formulated by Lenin, and supported previously by Trotsky as well as Stalin, once the majority has ruled everyone in the Party is obligated loyally to support the decision. This is called "democratic centralism." Not to do so is considered treason. Yet Trotsky and his supporters refused to abide by their own rules. They built up a secret organization with a secret printing press. 

... Stalin explained his position on democratic centralism when I talked to him in 1926. I asked him "In Russia, according to the Communist Party Constitution, when the party has decided a question by what we call a Party caucus the minority is not permitted to agitate against the majority. We all know that majorities are sometimes wrong and that minorities are sometimes morally right. How can a wrong majority decision ever be righted?" 

"We are a war party of several million people," Stalin answered. "A fighting party must execute its decisions, not degenerate into a discussion club. At the time of a conference and before an election to a conference there is complete freedom of opinion. But once a decision has been reached it is no longer a question of a majority or minority but rather of getting everyone to work to execute the decision, not begin anew the debate. 

"Russians love to discuss things, and private discussions go on continuously on every issue, but after a decision is made no one is allowed by any act to oppose it. 
Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 26 

The achievement and maintenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat are impossible without a Party strong and its cohesion and iron discipline. But iron discipline in the Party is impossible without unity of will and without absolute and complete unity of action on the part of all members of the Party. This does not mean of course that the possibility of a conflict of opinion within the Party is thus excluded. On the contrary, iron discipline does not preclude but presupposes criticism and conflicts of opinion within the Party. Least of all does it mean that the discipline must be "blind" discipline. On the contrary, iron discipline does not preclude but presupposes conscious and voluntary submission, for only conscious discipline can be truly iron discipline. But after a discussion has been closed, after criticism has run its course and a decision has been made, unity of will and unity of action of all Party members become indispensable conditions without which Party unity and iron discipline in the Party are inconceivable. [Lenin called this democratic centralism] 
Stalin, Joseph. Stalin's Kampf. New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, c1940, p. 247 

Lenin's authoritarian bent underlies his distrust of spontaneity and lays stress on a rigid centralization which he called democratic but which, having arrived at its conclusions, would then broke no discussion. 
Richardson, Rosamond. Stalin’s Shadow. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, p. 62 

STALIN FOLLOWED LENIN LOYALLY 

I know -- and this isn't guess or historical reconstruction -- I know that Stalin's mainspring was and is devotion to Lenin. He thought, and doubtless correctly, that Lenin was one of the great ones, the inspired teachers of humanity... Who come once in a 1000 years.....
He knew deep down in his heart that Lenin was always Lenin and what Lenin did was right. I don't care what Trotsky has said or Trotsky's friends, like Max Eastman and meanor folk who don't write so well as Max Eastman and haven't half his brains. I say that Stalin today, and always since Lenin died, has never made a decision nor even approached a decision without first asking himself, "what would Lenin have done in this case?" 
Duranty, Walter. The Kremlin and the People. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, Inc., 1941, p. 34 

That death should take Lenin at such a time is doubly tragic. He was prevented from reaping the fruits of his life's work, and out of the many party leaders he had so carefully trained, only one remained unshakably a Leninist. 
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 61 

Stalin was always a consistent Bolshevik and was one of Lenin's most trusted lieutenants in guiding the party work inside Russia.... 
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 90 

Stalin...accepted Lenin's views as soon is he read them and supported Lenin staunchly thereafter. 
Strong, Anna Louise. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream, 1956, p. 15 

Stalin's enemies have vainly tried to create the story of a clash between Lenin and Stalin. In actual fact, Stalin happened to be a blind follower of Lenin and has remained such.... 
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 54 

What is the most prominent of Lenin's traits that you can recall? 
His purposefulness and his ability to fight for his cause. You see, almost everyone in the Politburo was against him--Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin. In the Politburo, Lenin was supported only by Stalin and me. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 130 

Unlike most of the Bolshevik leaders, Stalin never raised his voice in opposition to Lenin on any point at any time. It was impossible, therefore, for him to forgive Trotsky's continuous criticism, which was further damned by his natural exasperation against this laborer who had been hired at the 11th hour.... Raymond Robbins once told me that he knew Stalin in the first winter of 1917-1918. "He sat outside the door of Lenin's office like a sentry," said Robbins, "watching everyone who went in and out, no less faithful than a sentry and, as far as we then knew, not much more important." In March 1922 Stalin received the reward of his faithful watching. He was made General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.... 
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 181 

...But remember that even Dzerzhinsky voted for Trotsky. 
Gorky also made mistakes. He came out against the October Revolution. In the last analysis no one understood Leninism better than Stalin. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 132 

Then take Trotsky. At first Lenin was favorably disposed toward him. Take Zinoviev, Bukharin, Kamenev--they were closest to Lenin. Temporarily, at a certain stage, they supported him, but they lacked consistency, so to speak, sufficient revolutionary character. 
With Marx, only Engels remained faithful. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 137 

Of all the members of the Politburo who worked under Lenin, Stalin alone remained. All the others went into opposition at one time or another: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov Tomsky, Bukharin.... Of course, for Stalin it was an unbearable situation--how to suffer criticism from all quarters, not to mention dissatisfaction, grumbling, and distrust. He needed nerves of steel to withstand it. Stalin too valued Bukharin highly. Yes he did! Bukharin was highly educated and cultured. But what can you do?! 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 262 

...Among Lenin's closest friends, in the end not one of those around him remained sufficiently loyal to Lenin and the party except Stalin. And Lenin had criticized Stalin. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 310 

During the critical period just before and after the Revolution, Stalin sat outside the door of Lenin's office like a faithful watchdog. He always followed Lenin's lead without cavil or disagreement, but Trotsky was often quick to criticize or challenge. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 105 

It was in 1929 that I first interviewed Stalin. I was required to submit to him a copy of the dispatch I was going to send to the New York Times. In it I had used the conventional phrase that Stalin was the "inheritor of Lenin's mantle." He scratched out those words and replaced them with "Lenin's most faithful disciple and the prolonger of his work." He also told me later that in any critical moment he tried to think what Lenin would've done in the circumstances, and to guide his own actions thereby. Stalin is a great man now as the world reckons greatness, but Lenin was different--Stalin knows it--one of the very rare and greatest men. Stalin always regarded his leader with deep, almost dog-like devotion, and never on any occasion challenged Lenin's views or failed to support him wholly. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 171 

Lenin was away--on orders of the Central Committee--from July to October. In the meantime, the Party was run by the Central Committee and other top committees, whose minutes show that Stalin was one of the five or six top leaders. Lenin was, of course, in touch by mail with the committee. But the minutes also show that he was not regarded as a "boss" or an oracle but as "Comrade Lenin" (Ilyich), the most respected member of a collective whose affairs were conducted democratically, usually with considerable debate. In these debates Stalin again seems to have been generally on Lenin's side. For instance, when Lenin in September and October was urging the necessity of insurrection and some members, notably Zinoviev and Kamenev, disagreed, Stalin moved that Lenin's letters be distributed to the leading Party organizations. And when Lenin returned, Stalin supported his position. 
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 31 

Lenin returned from Switzerland via Germany. France had refused to let him through by another route. (One knows the story of the "sealed wagon" and all the rest of that lying legend.). He arrived at Petrograd on April 3rd, 1917. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 49 

Indeed, at that time, "Lenin never let a day pass without seeing Stalin," writes Piestoffski. "That is no doubt why our office at Smolny was next door to Lenin's office. All day long Lenin would either speak to Stalin on the telephone or would come into our office and take him away with him. In this way Stalin spent the greater part of the day with Lenin. I witnessed a very interesting scene one day when I went to see Lenin. A large-scale map of Russia was hanging on the wall. Before it were two chairs on which Lenin and Stalin stood and followed a line to the north with their fingers." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 60 

From the very first moment that the Soviets came into power, Stalin had been Lenin's understudy, and he continued to understudy him when he was no longer there. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 147 

Stalin too, placed himself beneath the banner of Leninism, in the campaign which followed, to defend passionately the unity of the Party which was imperiled by the rebellion of the minority. To safeguard the unity of the Party became his great concern, as it had been Lenin's, as it had been Lenin's and Stalin's together, for, as we have already seen, these two never disagreed with one another on questions of either doctrine or tactics. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 164 

... Finally Lenin's demands were approved. Bukharin voted against them. Trotsky, unable to accept that his negotiations had failed or to realize the gravity of the situation, abstained. Stalin supported Lenin, and it is unlikely that he ever forgot the vulnerability of the party and of the nation or the conflict within the Central Committee during these fateful days. 
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 108 

As a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee Stalin took part in all the meetings of that body at which the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty and Russia's withdrawal from the imperialist war were discussed. The minutes of the Central Committee meetings show clearly that Stalin almost always supported Lenin's position, although in the early stages of the discussion Lenin was in the minority.... 
In all the voting on this question in the Central Committee Stalin supported Lenin's motions. The intensity of the dispute is seen in the fact that the motion for immediate conclusion of a peace with Germany was adopted on Feb. 18, 1918, by a majority of only one vote. Those voting for were Lenin, Smilga, Stalin, Sverdlov, Sokolnikov, Trotsky, and Zinoviev. Opposed were Uritsky, Joffe, Lomov, Bukharin, Krestinsky, and Dzerzhinsky. 
Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 51 

Stalin apparently did not keep a diary and he was careful about what he wrote down. Many documents were destroyed on his orders, as on occasion were reports that his instructions to the NKVD had been carried out. On the other hand, many documents remained in Stalin's private archive. For instance, there is a copy of a paper, dated 1923 and headed 'Biographical Details on Stalin', located in the Commissariat of Nationalities. Its author and purpose are not indicated, but it seems likely that it was prepared under Stalin's guidance.
The file gives a detailed account of Stalin's 'revolutionary services' before October: 
"During the October days, Stalin was one of a team of 5 (a collective) whose task was to give political leadership in the uprising.... Like his pre-revolutionary work, Stalin's present revolutionary work is of enormous importance. Distinguished by his tireless energy, his exceptional and outstanding mind and his implacable will, Comrade Stalin is one of the main, unseen, truly steel springs of the revolution, which with invincible force are turning the Russian revolution into a worldwide October. An old follower of Lenin's, better than anyone else he has absorbed Lenin's methods and ideas on practical activity.
Thanks to this, he is at present brilliantly deputizing for Lenin in the sphere not only of party activity, but also of state construction." 
Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991, p. 512 

...Stalin's promotion was due to the dissidence of so many members of the Center Committee. True, this time the dissidents did not leave the party, were not expelled, and even regained, later, their influence in the inner councils of Bolshevism. But they remained in reserve for the time being. This is not to say that Stalin was completely immune from the doubts and vacillations of the more moderate leaders; he had had his moment of hesitation on the eve of the October rising. But he was essentially Lenin's satellite. He moved invariably within Lenin's orbit. Every now and then his own judgment and political instinct tempted him to stray; and on a few important occasions his judgment was sounder than Lenin's. But at least in the first years after the Revolution, the master's pull on him was strong enough to keep him steadily within the prescribed orbit.
It was by Lenin's side that Stalin spent the night from Oct. 27 to 28 at Petersburg military headquarters, watching the measures taken to repel General Krasnov's march on the capital. He was by Lenin's side a few days later, when Lenin told the Commander-in-Chief, General Dukhonin, to offer an armistice to the German Command and to order the cease-fire, and when, after General Dukhonin's refusal, Lenin dismissed him and appointed Krylenko Commander-in-Chief. This was the beginning of Stalin's military activity which was to grow in scope and importance with the progress of the civil war. 
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 180-181 

"We are going to have not half a revolution but a whole revolution." Lenin's policy was not without danger to those who espoused it. The odium of a German invasion of the country might fall upon them. It seems safer to seem to uphold Kerensky. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Tomsky, Dzerzhinsky were all at first opposed to Lenin's policy. Almost his sole supporter of any note was Stalin. 
Graham, Stephen. Stalin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1970, p. 34 

[Duranty says that Stalin made him change a phrase in their interview, "inheritor of the mantle of Lenin," to "faithful servant of Lenin." A dictator Stalin certainly is, but not a flaming egotist. 
Gunther, John. Inside Europe. New York, London: Harper & Brothers, c1940, p. 530 

Stalin was the only one of the exiles to agree with his leader [Lenin}. 
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 70 

He [Lenin] was, therefore, obliged to seek allies. Zinoviev and Kamenev followed him, but Sverdlov, the man who knew most about the Party organizations, was dead, and the insignificant Kalinin was inclined to support Trotsky. The only useful ally to whom Lenin could turn was Stalin, with his numerous connections with all levels of the Party. 
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 117 

The two of them conversed endlessly. Stalin fitted Lenin's bill as a quintessential Bolshevik. He was tough and uncomplaining.... He appeared to conform to a working-class stereotype. He was also a committed revolutionary and a Bolshevik factional loyalist. Stalin was obviously bright and Lenin, who was engaged in controversy with Zhordania and other Mensheviks on the national question, encouraged Stalin to take time out from his duties to write up a lengthy piece on the subject. 
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 89 

Stalin bequeathed a consolidated system of rule to his successors. Personally he had remained devoted to Lenin and his rule had conserved and reinforced the Leninist regime. 
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 599 

LENIN NOT AN ABSOLUTE DICTATOR 

Lenin is not an absolute dictator, because he must get the agreement of the Communist Party to his policy. Generally he does get it, but the limitation still remains. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 42 

January 16, 1923--Lenin has often been called the "red dictator." This designation is wrong; Lenin never had the right to dictate, although in practice his opinion generally carried the day. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 101 

Lenin was far from being a dictator in his Party. Besides, a revolutionary party would not brook any dictatorship over itself! 
Trotsky, Leon, Stalin. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941, p. 137 


LENIN IS ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT RUSSIA 

Lenin is always right about Russia, because he knows and others only think. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 92 

November 16, 1923--...Lenin, who possesses to the supreme degree the twofold quality of seeing clear to a heart of a problem and finding the formula that will reconcile its solution with the Marxist principles. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 112 

Bolitho possessed to a remarkable degree the same quality which proved the key to Lenin's success, namely, the gift of making a quick and accurate summary of facts and drawing therefrom the right, logical, and inevitable conclusions. 
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 95 

The fact that his [Lenin] plan had achieved success in Russia, where capitalism was only in a rudimentary stage of development, is somewhat against the Marxian law and was due to an extraordinary convergence of circumstances, the most important of which was that there had been a leader capable of understanding the situation and utilizing it. 
Ludwig, Emil. Leaders of Europe. London: I. Nicholson and Watson Ltd., 1934, p. 363 


LENIN LEADS BY BRAIN AND WILL 

November 15, 1922--The power of brain and will. By that power Lenin rules. By it alone. For he lacks Trotsky's eloquence and magnetism, Radek's persuasiveness, and Zinoviev's grim enthusiasm. And, unlike western demagogues, he never seeks to flatter an audience or appeal to their preferences and emotions. His authority is based on the more solid foundation of greater brain power--better judgment, deeper reasoning, truer analysis of facts. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 97 

The secret of Lenin's authority, which did in fact amount to dictatorship, was that long experience had proved him right far oftener than his colleagues. It is said that once, at the beginning of the Revolution, Lenin, faced by general opposition, wrapped his head in his cloak, saying: "All right! Argue it out for yourselves; but when you're reached the conclusion that my plan is the only possible one wake me up and say so. I'm going to sleep." An hour or two later they woke him up and said: "we don't like your plan much more than we did, but we agree that it's the only way. You're right." As the event proved, Lenin was right in this case, and scores of others like it gave him such ascendancy that by 1919 or 1920 his opinions were hardly questioned.
But it was supremacy of brain, not of position....
Trotsky is a great executive, but his brain cannot compare with Lenin's in analytical power. 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 102 

Now Lenin is portrayed as a monster, evil, and so forth. This is because he was like a rock, armed with knowledge, science, and a colossal mind.... He had a vision. Perhaps he didn't see everything, but he saw the main thing. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 137 

Of the men who have lived on earth, Lenin was one of the greatest. 
It is a strange and paradoxical thing that the Bolsheviks, who had one of the greatest individual leaders of all time, profess to decry the importance of individual leadership. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 19 

LENIN GOT PEOPLE TO WORK BY PERSUASION, NOT FORCE 

Peter the Great made them work, too, but by brute force and Lenin by the force of personality. "That force," said Osinsky, "came from two qualities--first, the capacity to understand the real meaning of events; second, the ability to explain things to others." 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 145 

The Bolsheviks can organize much, but is not their propaganda which draws these hundreds of thousands to Lenin's feet. 
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 223 

To use an un-Bolshevik metaphor, Lenin had realized, and taught to his followers, that the Russian masses were a bank upon which any check could be drawn, provided that they were told what the money was for and that it was being spent for their benefit. As Lenin said and repeated, the masses would do anything, suffer anything, and shrink from nothing, if they were rightly appealed to. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 139 

LENIN LIVED SIMPLY 

Semashko gives his explanation of this power. He writes: "Lenin is really one with the people at heart. He has always lived in extreme simplicity--one small room, an iron bed, and a work table. This simplicity is innate in him, not a demagogic trick or bourgeois hypocrisy. Later, as master of Russia, he was always annoyed by pomp and ceremony." 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 146 

This simplicity and modesty of Lenin's, which struck me the moment I met him, his desire to pass unnoticed, or any rate not to emphasize his superiority, was one of his strongest points as the new chief of the new masses, the great, simple, and profound masses of humanity...." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 35 


STALIN CALLS HIMSELF LENIN’S DISCIPLE 

"Lenin," Stalin told me, "differed from the rest of us by his clear Marxist brain and his unfaltering will. Lenin from the outset favored a hard boiled policy and even then was picking men who could stick it out and endure." To the Stalin of today Lenin is so far above him that, when I wrote he was Lenin's "successor," he made me change it to Lenin's "disciple." It was not modestly but a statement of fact. Stalin is a great man now as the world reckons greatness, but Lenin was different--he knows it--one of the very rare and greatest men.
So Stalin set himself to follow Lenin's star, from which he never waived in the worst uglyness of defeat or in the darker days when Lenin had a bare handful of followers in Switzerland.... 
Duranty, Walter. Duranty Reports Russia. New York: The Viking Press, 1934, p. 169 

Stalin forced the transformation of Russia in exactly the same way as Peter the Great had done. When I therefore asked him whether he did not feel himself to be the successor of the latter, he denied it peremptorily:
"These historic parallels are always dangerous. But, if you insist on it, I can only say the following: Peter--he purposely omitted “the Great’--only brought one stone to the temple; Lenin built it. But I am only Lenin's disciple, and my only desire is to be known as his worthy successor." 
Ludwig, Emil, Stalin. New York, New York: G. P. Putnam's sons, 1942, p. 123 

Stalin has written a great number of important books. Several of them have a classic value in Marxist literature. But if one asks him what he is, he replies: "I am only a disciple of Lenin, and my whole ambition is to be a faithful disciple." It is curious to observe how, in many of the accounts of work accomplished under his direction, Stalin systematically gives credit for all the progress made to Lenin, whereas the credit has been in very large measure his own,... 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 280 

When the Kerensky revolution took place, in March 1917, Stalin was liberated. Though most of the other political prisoners were welcomed with public demonstrations on their return home, Stalin came back to Petrograd alone and practically unnoticed. He immediately became an editorial writer on the Pravda. The first articles which he published were moderate and conciliatory. But two months later, when Lenin came to Petrograd and immediately put an end to liberalist and moderate socialist tendencies in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party, Stalin took Lenin's side and was a passionate follower of his to the end. I once asked him if he did not look upon himself as a sort of follower of Peter the Great. He brusquely pooh-poohed the suggestion and answered: "I am a disciple of Lenin. And my only wish is to be a worthy follower of his. Historical parallels such as that you have mentioned are always somewhat risky, but if you insist upon suggesting this parallel with Peter the Great, then I should say that Peter brought only a brick to the building of the temple but Lenin constructed the edifice himself. I am only his disciple." 
Ludwig, Emil. Leaders of Europe. London: I. Nicholson and Watson Ltd., 1934, p. 357 

That Stalin has the disciple of Lenin rather than of Marx we can tell by his writings. It is even possible that he loved Lenin. In any case today, when his power far exceeds any that Lenin ever had, Stalin feels that he is the second of a line. When I spoke to him of the succession of Peter the Great, he answered simply: "I am a disciple of Lenin. My only wish is to become a worthy one. If a comparison must be found, the only man to compare with Lenin is Peter the Great. But I, for my part, am merely Lenin's disciple."
Since I have no doubt of the truth of this confession, I can only explain this unusual modesty in a dictator, this voluntary retreat to the second place, by a personal veneration which seems otherwise alien to Stalin's nature and is unique in his life. 
Ludwig, Emil. Three portraits: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. New York Toronto: Longmans, Green and Company, c1940, p. 97 

[In a May 13, 1933 talk with Colonel Robins the following dialogue occurred] 
ROBINS: I consider it a great honour to have an opportunity of paying you a visit. 
STALIN: There is nothing particular in that. You are exaggerating. 
ROBINS: What is most interesting to me is that throughout Russia I have found the names Lenin-Stalin, Lenin-Stalin, Lenin-Stalin, linked together. 
STALIN: That, too, is an exaggeration. How can I be compared to Lenin? 
Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 13, p. 267 


LENIN AND STALIN WERE SHOW NO MERCY REALISTS 

Stalin is no less of a Marxist than Lenin who never allowed his Marxism to blind him to the needs of expediency. When Lenin brought in NEP, he jettisoned Marxist principles more thoroughly than Stalin ever did, and when Lenin began a fight, whether the weapons were words or bullets, he showed no mercy to his opponents. 
Duranty, Walter. I Write as I Please. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935, p. 274 


STALIN MEETS LENIN AND TROTSKY FOR FIRST TIME 

Thus, in Tammerfors Stalin first spoke to Lenin personally. He also saw there for the first time his later mortal enemy, Trotsky. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 27 


STALIN CONSIDERED LENIN TO BE THE GREATEST AND USED THE WORD LENINISM 

The term 'Leninism' was invented by the enemies of the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the real Russian Social Democrats, who regarded themselves as the true inheritors of Marx's ideology; by their use of the term 'Leninism' they wished to place on record that Lenin was not a follower of Marx at all, but a heretic who had elaborated a doctrine of his own that was a deviation from Karl Marx....
For Stalin, Lenin towered above everyone else. He regarded him as the greatest figure not only of his own time but of all time. In the attitude of the others to Lenin, Stalin saw nothing but almost unendurable presumption. He was quite certain that none of them could take over Lenin's heritage, 'Lenin's cause', or even think of doing so. He certainly regarded the people around Lenin as unworthy of that great man. He himself stood on the fringe of that circle, with a firm belief that he alone had fully realized ”Lenin's personality and his overwhelming historical importance....
But on April 3, 1920, Stalin published in Pravda an article on Lenin's birthday. The very title of the article was a program: 'LENIN-- the organizer and leader of the All-Russian Communist Party.' In this short article Stalin described Lenin's theoretical controversy with the Mensheviks, and gave a clear account of the difference between the two tendencies in Russian socialism. But the main feature of the article is that it represented Lenin as the sole creator of the Bolshevik doctrine, and the organizer of the party, to whom alone belonged the absolute leadership of the party. Clearly 'Leninism' existed already for Stalin.
Immediately after Lenin's death, Stalin went to work to create the Lenin legend, and the word 'Leninism' reappeared; this time, however, as an official party term. It was followed before long by the publication of Stalin's book the Foundations of Leninism. This book is of such great historical importance that it calls for consideration. According to Stalin, Leninism is the direct and only true continuation of Marxism, the theory, strategy, and tactic, created by Lenin, of socialism in the age of imperialism. For the age of imperialism is that of the dying capitalist society, and will be ended by the social revolution. While Marxism held good for the labor movement in the pre-revolutionary, that is to say in the time of the development of the labor movement and the ripening and coming to fruition of the social revolution, Leninism is the doctrine of the theory and tactic of the proletarian revolution itself. According to Lenin, therefore--as interpreted by Stalin--we are living in the age of the world-wide social revolution.
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 111-113 

STALIN INTERPRETS LENIN ON DESTROYING THE STATE 

Lenin adds, according to Stalin: "The proletarian Revolution is impossible without the destruction by force of the machinery of the bourgeois state and its replacement by new machinery." 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 114 

ONLY STALIN WROTE THEORETICAL WRITINGS CONTINUING LENIN 

The question arises, why was it that Stalin, and he alone, published what at that time was the only book on the theory of Leninism? At that time all party members, especially the leaders, were free to write, and within the party there was complete freedom of expression of opinion. At that time Stalin was not accounted a theorist; after Lenin's death Bucharin was regarded as the best theorist in the Politburo. The explanation is that probably none of the leading Bolsheviks would so have demeaned himself as to write a whole book simply as a commentator on Lenin. Each of them regarded himself as an authority on theory and as part of the body of intellectuals who had created the Bolshevik Party and laid the intellectual foundations of the revolution. They regarded themselves as original thinkers, quite competent to formulate their own theories, proceeding straight from Marxism, and not as mere loud-speakers for Lenin.... 
...He [Stalin] was much closer to the mass of the people than his opponents were.... 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 116 


COMMUNISTS LED A VERY RIGOROUS, SPARTAN LIFE 

...another division faded within the official class, the division between party members and the so-called nonparty, which until lately and been sharply defined; it had existed since the revolution. The Communists had been morally and in power and prestige far above their nonparty colleagues; but they had also been subject to a far more rigid discipline. The party had interfered extensively even in their private life. They had been materially at a disadvantage as compared with the others. A Communist had had to take a sort of vow of poverty, and there was a 'party maximum'. An engineer, for instance, who did not belong to the party could keep the whole of his income and spend it as he liked. Not so the Communist. Not only had he a party tax to pay, but his income was limited. He was paid his salary in full, like the nonparty man, but he had to hand over to the party whatever he earned above the party maximum. Even what he had left he could not spend as he liked; he must not live in 'bourgeois' style, but was restricted to a Spartan existence. 

Periodical 'purges' took place, and every Communist had to face them. The whole of the workers, whether party members are not, could take part, and everyone was free to criticize. Then it would be found that one of the Communists had too many suits, another had a carpet in his dwelling, a third fed too well, and the wife of the fourth wore some simple article of jewelry. All these things were 'unproletarian', and might bring a Communist into serious trouble. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 213 

STALIN AGREES WITH LENIN THAT THE STATE MUST USE FORCE 

Stalin has never denied his belief in the ruthless use of force. He openly agreed not only with Lenin's view that the State exists always in order to enable one class to dominate another, but also with Lenin's opinion that dictatorship is a use of force unrestricted by any law. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 235 

Without their resolve to take extreme measures, neither Lenin nor Stalin can be understood. No, without their resolve we might not be alive today, much less trying to understand. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 278 

STALIN BELIEVED IN A CENTRALIZED STATE 

Stalin made an end of all that [local soviets setting up their own administrative organization without consulting the centre]. He declared his belief in the centralized State, and on one occasion actually said: 'Only a centralized State can get anything done.' 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 276 

Though the charges of Russian nationalism have since been laid against Stalin more than once, he was not, either then or even in later days, prompted by any of the ordinary emotions and prejudices that go with nationalism. What he represented was merely the principal of centralization, common to all modern revolutions. 
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 240 

STALIN CONTENDS NATIONS CAN PASS CAPITALISM AND GO STRAIGHT TO SOCIALISM 

In 1926, however, Stalin put forward his own theories about Asia. He held that there was no need for all countries still in the pre-capitalist era to pass through the capitalist stage. Since the dictatorship of the proletariat ruled in the Soviet Union, those peoples could evade that stage with Russian help and proceed directly to socialism. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 282 

STALIN AND LENIN SHARE SAME KEY BELIEFS 

Stalin shares Lenin's conviction that the world will not permit the Soviet Union to develop in peace, because the mere example of that development would be bound to bring capitalism to its end.... 
He also shares Lenin's belief in the irreconcilable differences in the imperialist world, 'which guarantee the safety of the Soviet and the victory of the world revolution'.... 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 320 

It is the general fashion among Stalin's official biographers to give him little credit for original thinking, probably because their subject himself invariably insists: "I am only the interpreter of Leninism." "I followed the directives laid down first by Comrade Lenin." On the rare occasions when we can test the reactions of the two men to the same set of circumstances before they have had time to compare conclusions, it invariably turns out that Stalin was not behind his leader in thinking out a line for himself; his policy subsequently proved on every occasion to be confirmed by the decision of Lenin. 
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 36 


STALIN PERMANENTLY FOLLOWED LENIN FROM THEIR FIRST MEETING 

While serving this particular sentence, Stalin took one of the most important steps of his life. Eagerly devouring the smuggled copies of the party organ Iskra (The Spark), which arrived by devious means, Stalin found himself increasingly impressed by those articles which carried the initials of Lenin. Hesitating no longer he wrote a letter to Lenin in London. In December 1903 after a lapse of almost six months, he received a reply which, in his own words, "contained an amazingly clear explanation of the tactics of our Party and a brilliant analysis of our future tasks." From that day he became Lenin's man and never for an instant deviated from his allegiance. 
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 19 

Stalin made it clear to me that at his first meeting with the Master--at Tammerfors, Finland, in 1905--he decided to hitch is wagon to Lenin's star. "Lenin," he told me, "differed from the rest of us by his clear Marxist brain and his unfaltering will. From the outset he favored a strong policy and even then was picking men who could stick it out and endure." 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 171 

Kaganovich says, "The most remarkable and most characteristic feature of all Stalin's political activities is that he never drifted apart from Lenin and never swerved to the Right or to the Left." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 46 

Between 1901 and 1917, right from the beginning of the Bolshevik Party until the October Revolution, Stalin was a major supporter of Lenin's line. No other Bolshevik leader could claim as constant or diverse activity as Stalin. He had followed Lenin right from the beginning, at the time when Lenin only had a small number of adherents among the socialist intellectuals. Unlike most of the other Bolshevik leaders, Stalin was constantly in contact with Russian reality and with activists within Russia. He knew these militants, having met them in open and clandestine struggles, in prisons and in Siberia. Stalin was very competent, having led armed struggle in the Caucasus as well as clandestine struggles; he had led union struggles and edited legal and illegal newspapers; he had led the legal and parliamentary struggle and knew the national minorities as well as the Russian people. 
Martens, Ludo. Another View of Stalin. Antwerp, Belgium: EPO, Lange Pastoorstraat 25-27 2600, p. 25 [pp. 15-16 on the NET] 

LENIN HONORS STALIN WITH PROMOTIONS BEFORE WWI 

1912 opened in a more hopeful key, each month producing further proof that the long period of ebb was drawing to a close. For Stalin personally, 1912 also brought a most welcome decision. In February of that year Lenin proposed to the Bolshevik leaders in session abroad, that they recognize the devotion and achievements of Stalin by co-opting him onto the Central Committee. The news of his election reached Stalin a month later and stimulated him to even greater effort.... 

Further honors were conferred upon Stalin here in Cracow; Lenin agreed that events were moving so rapidly that the emigre Central Committee might find itself acting as a break upon the initiative of the Party if it retained in its own hands the entire direction of policy. To avoid this possibility it was decided to delegate the immediate tactical direction of the struggle within Russia to an "executive bureau," of which the principal figures were Stalin and his countryman, Sergo Ordjonikidze. Except for major strategical decisions, Lenin voluntarily handed over control of the Party's work within Russia to the "wonderful Georgian." With what impressive results was soon to be made clear. 
Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, p. 33 

LENIN MADE NO EFFORT TO KEEP GROUPS FROM SPLITTING OFF 

Again and again groups which could not agree split off of the others. Lenin made no effort to detain them; he distinguished sharply between those allies with whom cooperation was possible for a longer or shorter period, and the smaller group which would stick through everything. 
Strong, Anna Louise. This Soviet World. New York, N. Y: H. Holt and company, c1936, p. 25 

LENIN AND STALIN DID NOT RELY ON STIRRING ORATORY FOR SUPPORT 

A communist who allowed himself to become as ignorant of world affairs as is the average American politician would be "cleaned out" of the party,.... 
The emotional vagueness which is a feature of all capitalist political platforms, and which is indeed desired in order to win wide support without being too definite, is the exact opposite of communist statements.... 

This [Marxism] is no dogma to be learned once for all; it is a developing body of thought, constantly applied to and affected by new conditions. By the very theory of dialectics, these forces are changing. The speeches of Lenin and Stalin and other party leaders never deal in stirring oratory or spell-binding generalities but in close and careful analysis. Stalin would no more attempt to sway a communist Congress by "force of personality" expressed in brilliant oratory and colorful phrasing, than Edison would have expected to convince a group of American engineers of the reliability of some new formula by emotional words. One such attempt would ruin either an Edison or Stalin. 
Strong, Anna Louise. This Soviet World. New York, N. Y: H. Holt and company, c1936, p. 29-30 

Lenin did not at all conform to the accepted idea of an orator. He was just a man speaking. Except at certain periods (notably the days of October) when it was important that the direct and immediate impulses of the people should be aroused, and when it was necessary at all costs to make an impression on the mighty surging tide of humanity, Lenin made hardly any gestures at all when he spoke. At congresses, people commented on his quietness and even on the "dryness" of his delivery. He merely endeavored to persuade his listeners, to convey his convictions from within, not from without, by the weight of their contents, as it were, and not by the gesticulations of the container. The oratorical gestures which are sometimes seen in representations of him are not quite correct, and he may be said never to have moved so much as in his statues. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 38 

The simple and efficient method of delivery which Lenin employed was also that which Stalin had instinctively adopted and which he was destined never to abandon (he has even accentuated it). 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 39 

STALIN HELD LENIN IN THE HIGHEST REGARD 

When I compared him with the other leaders of our party, it always seemed to me that he was head and shoulders above his colleagues--Plekhanov, Martov, Axelrod and the others; that, compared with them, Lenin was not just one of the leaders, but a leader of the highest rank, a mountain eagle, who knew no fear in the struggle,.... This simple and bold letter strengthened my opinion that Lenin was the mountain eagle of our Party. I cannot forgive myself for having, from the habit of an old underground worker, consigned this letter of Lenin's, like many other letters, to the flames. 
Yaroslavsky, Emelian. Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. Moscow: FLPH, 1940, p. 30 

LENIN COMPLIMENTS AND CARES FOR STALIN 

In a letter to Gorky, Lenin referred affectionately to Stalin and to this work: "A wonderful Georgian here," he said.... 
Yaroslavsky, Emelian. Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. Moscow: FLPH, 1940, p. 75 

First, it should not be forgotten that even before the Revolution Lenin praised Stalin for his work on the national question and called him "the wonderful Georgian." 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 198 


After completing his work on the national question, Comrade Stalin returned to St. Petersburg. Not having heard anything from him for some time, Lenin, in a letter dated March 8, 1913, inquired: "That is there no news of Vasily (Stalin--E.Y.)? What is wrong with him? We are worried." Two days later, he again writes: "Take good care of him" (Stalin), "he is very sick." 
Yaroslavsky, Emelian. Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. Moscow: FLPH, 1940, p. 76 

LENIN WAS MORE SEVERE AND LESS LENIENT THAN STALIN 

CHUEV: Who was more severe, Lenin or Stalin? 
MOLOTOV: Lenin, of course. He was severe. In some cases he was harsher than Stalin. Read his messages to Dzerzhinsky. He often resorted to extreme measures when necessary. He ordered the suppression of the Tambov uprising, that everything be burned to the ground. I was present at the discussion. He would not have tolerated any opposition, even had it appeared. I recall how he reproached Stalin for his softness and liberalism. "What kind of a dictatorship do we have? We have a milk-and-honey power, and not a dictatorship!" 

CHUEV: Where is it written that he reproached Stalin? 
MOLOTOV: It was in a small circle among us. 

Here is a telegram from Lenin to a provincial food commissar in his native Simbirsk in 1919: "The starving workers of Petrograd and Moscow are complaining about your inefficient management.... I demand from you maximum energy, a no-holds-barred attitude to the job, and thorough assistance to the starving workers. If you fail, I will be forced to arrest the entire staff of your institutions and to bring them to trial.... You must immediately load and send off two trains of 30 cars each. Send a telegram when this is complete. If it is confirmed that, by four clock, you did not send the grain and made the peasants wait until morning, you will be shot. Sovnarkom Chairman, Lenin." 

I remember another case. Lenin had received a letter from a poor peasant of Rostov province saying that things were bad with them, that no one paid any attention to them, the poor peasants, that there was no help for them and that, on the contrary, they were oppressed. Lenin proposed the formation of a group of "Sverdlovers [adults from Sverdlov University]...." Lenin directed this group to go to the place in question and, if the report was confirmed, to shoot guilty parties right then and there and to rectify the situation. 

What could be more concrete? Shoot on the spot and that's that! Such things happened. It was outside the law, but we had to do it.... Lenin was a strong character. If necessary, he seized people by the scruff of their necks. 

CHUEV: They say that Lenin had nothing to do with the execution of the tsar’s family in 1918, that it was a decision of the local authorities following Kolchak’s attack.... But some people say it was revenge for Lenin’s brother. 

MOLOTOV: They make Lenin out to be a crank. They are small-fry philistines who think this. Don’t be naive. 

I think that, without Lenin, no one would have dared to make such a decision. Lenin was implacable when the Revolution, Soviet power, and communism were at stake. Indeed, had we implemented democratic solutions to all problems, this would surely have damaged the state and the party. Issues would have dragged on for too long and nothing good would have come of this sort of formal democracy. Lenin often resolved critical problems by himself, on his own authority. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 107-109 

I understand the feelings of those who wrote about rural life. They took pity on the muzhik. But what could you do? Sacrifices were unavoidable. Some argue that Lenin would have never pursued that kind of policy. But in matters like that Lenin was more severe than Stalin. Many suggest that Lenin would have reexamined his stand on the proletarian dictatorship, that he wasn't a dogmatist, and so on. But this is said by people who very much would have liked him to revise his views! 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 251 

Of course Lenin displayed more flexibility in certain cases. Stalin was less tolerant. But, on the other hand, Lenin demanded that Zinoviev and Kamenev be expelled from the party in the days of the October Revolution, and Stalin defended them. It could go either way depending on the case. But it cannot be said that Lenin was soft. He didn't spend his time wiping children's snotty noses. Lenin should not be portrayed like that. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 270 

Lenin started the concentration camps, established the Cheka. Stalin just continued them. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 411 

... Moreover, it was he [Lenin] who fostered the terror, forced labor camps, suppression of all opposition, monolithic organization of party and state, and other aspects of the Soviet system, which are anathema to Western liberal opinion and which are popularly attributed to Stalin. 
Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. xii 

A friend of mine met Molotov before his death and he told Molotov, "You know, it's a pity that Lenin died so early. If he had lived longer, everything would have been normal." But Molotov said, "Why do you say that?" My friend said, "Because Stalin was a bloodsucker and Lenin was a noble person." Molotov smiled, and then he said, "Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a mere lamb." 
Remnick, David. Lenin's Tomb. New York: Random House, c1993, p. 45 

...there has grown up in the United States a curious and inaccurate distinction between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin has been presented as a kind-hearted idealist--almost a democrat in our sense--whereas Stalin has been pictured as a ruthless Asiatic dictator.... But Lenin's actions and speeches against the opposition of the kulaks, the clergy, the bourgeois, landlords, and generals were just as harsh as anything we know of Stalin. Both men were agreed in showing no mercy to their enemies, but Lenin's enemies, for the most part, were outsiders, the foes of the Revolution. Against them he showed no mercy. By the time Stalin came to power non-Party opposition in the USSR had been thoroughly defeated. 
...That, in short, was the difference--a difference of time and a personality. In Lenin's day the prime struggle was against the anti-Bolshevik elements in Russia and outside Russia, the counterrevolution of Denikin, Kolchak, and Yudenich, supported by the invasion, or intervention, of French, British, Czechs, Japanese, and Americans. In addition, Lenin's personal authority was so great that he had no real or prolonged difficulty with opponents inside the Communist Party. Stalin's situation was otherwise. Since, by 1924, when Lenin died, internal and external non-communist enemies had been defeated, Stalin's conflict was within the Party. 
Duranty, Walter. Stalin & Co. New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1949, p. 20 

[In a speech delivered to the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Presidium of the Central Control Commission of the CPSU in early 1929 Stalin stated] It is said that Lenin would certainly have acted more mildly than the Central Committee is now acting towards Tomsky and Bukharin. That is absolutely untrue. The situation now is that two members of the Political Bureau systematically violate Central Committee decisions, stubbornly refuse to remain in posts assigned to them by the Party, yet, instead of punishing them, the Central Committee of the Party has for two months already been trying to persuade them to remain in their posts. And--just recall--how did Lenin act in such cases? You surely remember that just for one small error committed by Tomsky, Comrade Lenin packed him off to Turkestan. 

TOMSKY: With Zinoviev’s benevolent assistance, and partly yours. 

STALIN: If what you mean to say is that Lenin could be persuaded to do anything of which he was not himself convinced, that can only arouse laughter.... Recall another fact, for example, the case of Shlyapnikov, whose expulsion from the Central Committee Lenin recommended because he had criticized some draft decision of the Supreme Council of National Economy in the Party unit of that body. 

Who can deny that Bukharin's and Tomsky's present crimes in grossly violating Central Committee decisions and openly creating a new opportunist platform against the Party are far graver than were the offenses of Tomsky and Shlyapnikov in the cases mentioned? Yet, not only is the Central Committee not demanding that either of them should be excluded from the Central Committee or be assigned to somewhere in Turkestan, but it is confining itself to attempts to persuade them to remain in their posts, while at the same time, of course, exposing their non-Party, and at times downright anti-Party, line. What greater mildness do you want? 

Would it not be truer to say that we, the Central Committee majority, are treating the Bukharinites too liberally and tolerably, and that we are thereby, perhaps, involuntarily encouraging their factional anti-party "work"? 

Stalin, Joseph. Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1952, Vol. 11, p. 338-340 


LENIN SUPERIOR TO STALIN BUT NOT IN PRACTICAL POLITICS 

Of course, Lenin was superior to Stalin. I always thought so. He was superior in the theoretical sense, superior in his personal qualities. But no one could surpass Stalin as a practical worker. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 112 

Sometimes Stalin would insist that the unity of the party was the supreme good and that for its sake even principles had to be sacrificed. At other times he would argue that if necessary to uphold principals a split should not be avoided. He would resort now to this, now to that argument, depending on which happened to suit him at a given moment. In disputes his was always the voice of reason, striving to reconcile lofty standards with expediency, a model of moderation and a threat to no one. He had no enemies, except possibly Trotsky, and even him he sought to befriend until rebuffed:... 
Pipes, Richard. Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1993, p. 466 

And Koba after all is a realist. One must give him credit for that.... 
Litvinov, Maksim Maksimovich. Notes for a Journal. New York: Morrow, 1955, p. 34 

The outstanding talent of Stalin is his ability to tell the executive, the experts, the groups what is next to be done and how to set about it. He has been stronger than Lenin but he has added nothing to Leninism except tactics; add of course will, vigilance, and judgment of character. He is a general of the economic and political revolution. 
Graham, Stephen. Stalin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1970, p. 140 

Historians have long been aware of the disagreement between Lenin and Stalin over the first constitution of the USSR, but the dispute needs to be freshly examined because recent events have made it possible for us to assess the details more objectively. Most previous accounts of this conflict have questioned Stalin's skepticism about the durability of a "union" based on the "solidarity of the workers" (i.e. Party discipline), and various authors have argued that his insistence on the need for tough central power to hold the entire structure together was wrong. Today, a decade after the surprisingly rapid collapse ofthe Soviet Union, it can be argued that Lenin was the one who was politically shortsighted when he proposed a less restrictive first constitution for the Soviet Union. 
Medvedev, Roy & Zhores Medvedev. The Unknown Stalin. NY, NY: Overlook Press, 2004, p. 263 

Analyzing the events of the pre-war period today, it does seem clear that the strictly centralized economy, which played such a crucial role in the rapid industrialization of the country, would never have been possible if Lenin's model for the Union had been adopted. Lenin even went so far as to oppose a centrally directed general transport system. And if instead of the USSR with its "autonomous" and "Union" republics (the latter distinguished by a formal right to secede), an extended Russian Federation had been established as originally envisaged by Stalin, this certainly would have led to an even more rapid economic, political, and ethnic integration of the country. Along with an accelerated process of Russification, there could have been the genuine birth of a "Soviet people" that paid much less heed to ethnicity, rather like the experience of the United States. 
Medvedev, Roy & Zhores Medvedev. The Unknown Stalin. NY, NY: Overlook Press, 2004, p. 268 

LENIN WANTED SILENCE DURING MEETINGS AND NO SMOKING 

...Lenin disliked conversations during meetings.... But Lenin very much disliked it when people whispered during the sessions. He could not stand smoking at all. He himself didn't smoke. He was annoyed by whispering, all kinds of talking.... 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 124 

LEADERS CAN’T BE RUDE OR ABUSE SUBORDINATES 

...Rudeness cannot be justified. It cannot be turned into a special issue, but it also cannot be justified. If you get to the top, you must behave properly. You must be patient. Otherwise, what kind of a leader are you? That's an elementary obligation. As for a subordinate, if you abuse him, it's no life: its prison. It's already hard enough for him without that.... 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 124 

This attention to us [some generals] touched us deeply. I have already mentioned how Stalin could be very irascible and abrasive; but even more striking was this concern for his subordinates at such a grave time. 
Vasilevskii, Aleksandr M. A Lifelong Cause. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1981, p. 118 

Throughout my entire work with Stalin, especially during the Great Patriotic War, I had invariably felt his attention. I would even say excessive concern, that I seemingly did not merit . 
Vasilevskii, Aleksandr M. A Lifelong Cause. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1981, p. 285 

MOLOTOV SAYS TROTSKY ADMITS HE WAS NO BOLSHEVIK & PREDICTED THE PARTY’S DEFEAT 

Trotsky put it more slyly, more cautiously. His purport was: our time is up. I have always opposed you Bolsheviks but joined you, changed to the Bolshevik party before the Revolution. But nothing came of it. The international proletariat did not support us. This means you have failed, you have no future! 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 127 

BOLSHEVIKS HAD NO THEORETICIANS AFTER LENIN 

Generally speaking, we had few theoreticians. Genuine Bolshevik theoreticians were not easy to find. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 228 

LENIN ERRED ON THE PAY STRUCTURE OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY 

...under socialism, Lenin said, no official will be paid a higher wage than the average worker's. None of the officials, including the general secretary of the party and the chairman of the council of ministers, should receive compensation higher than that of the average worker. This principle was practiced by the Paris Commune. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 380 

Lenin declared in 1918 that we could pay the top bourgeois specialists more than others. ...but we could tolerate it as a temporary expedient. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 399 


THE TRANQUIL LIFE IS NOT FOR REAL REVOLUTIONARIES 

"Go your own way!"--if that's the policy we are going to follow regarding Poland, then we are in for trouble at home. 
We are all interconnected.... 
In fact, an ever more ferocious and perilous struggle is unfolding.... I am against the tranquil life! If I craved a tranquil life, it would mean I have been "philistinized." [11-9-81] 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 402 

We need to strengthen the party line to prevent philistines from getting the upper hand. Yes, more than a few who desire a restful life will be found out there. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 412 

It was Stalin, they declare, who built the Soviet Union into a superpower. It was Stalin who industrialized a peasant country, took it from wooden ploughs to atomic weapons, thrust it into the 20th-century, and made the West tremble at the might of Russia. Above all, it was Stalin who won the war, destroyed Hitler, beat the Germans. As they talk of Stalin, his admirers romanticize the exploits of their own youth, when, with Stalin at the helm, they were building a Brave New World. And now, amid the disarray of Gorbachev's perestroika, they long nostalgically for the order and discipline imposed by the strong boss in the Kremlin. Those were times, they assert, when factories worked--and so did workers--unlike today! 
Smith, Hedrick. The New Russians (Pt. 1). New York: Random House, 1990. p. 132 


BOLSHEVIKS REGARDED THE PARTY AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROLETARIAN STATE 

The fact of the matter was that Lenin and his associates regarded the Communist Party as the tutor or guardian of the infant proletarian state which was not yet adult or experienced enough to govern itself and order its own ways. 
Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 93 

LENIN WOULD HAVE ACTED AS STALIN DID 

In such policies, Stalin was trying to strike a balance between mass participation and firm leadership, which would provide guidance and structure for such participation.... Lenin, confronting the problems that the Party faced in these years, could hardly have acted differently than Stalin did. 
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 78 


STALIN DESCRIBES HIS FIRST ENCOUNTERS WITH LENIN 

The meeting between Lenin and Stalin, in Stalin's own words: 
"I first made Lenin's acquaintance in 1903. I did not meet him then, but we corresponded. I have retained an unforgettable memory of that first epistolary meeting. I was an exile in Siberia at the time. In studying Lenin's Revolutionary activities from the end of the last century, and particularly after the appearance of Iskra (The Spark), in 1901, I arrived at the conviction that in Lenin we possessed no ordinary man. To my mind he was not just a mere Party leader, but a real creator, for he alone understood the nature and urgent needs of our Party. When I compared the other leaders with Lenin, they always seemed to be a head shorter than he. Beside them, Lenin was not a person of the same order of things, but a commander of a superior type, a mountain eagle, a fearless fighter leading the Party forward through the hitherto unexplored paths of the Russian revolutionary movement. This impression anchored itself so firmly in the depths of my mind that I felt compelled to write about him to a close friend of mine who happened to be away from Russia at the time, and to ask him for his opinion of him. Sometime later I received an enthusiastic reply from my friend, addressed to Siberia, and at the same time I received a simple but profound letter from Lenin. I understood that my friend had shown him my letter. Lenin's letter was relatively short, but he criticized incisively and intrepidly the practical work of our Party, and disclosed with remarkable clarity and precision the whole future plan of action of the Party. 

I met him for the first time in December 1905, at the Bolshevik Conference of Tammerfors (in Finland). I was expecting to see, in the eagle of our Party, a great man not great only in the political sense, but physically great also, for in my imagination I pictured Lenin as a giant, fascinating, and symbolic. What was my surprise then, to see before me a man of less than middle height, in no way distinguishable from ordinary human beings! 

A great man is supposed to arrive late at meetings, so that the assembly may anxiously await his arrival. The appearance of a great man is always heralded by remarks such as: Sh!... Silence!... Here he comes! But I found that Lenin had arrived long before the others, and I saw him in a corner engaged in the most ordinary conversation with one of the least important of the delegates. He was quite clearly not behaving according to the accepted rules.” 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 30 

LENIN COMPLIMENTS STALIN’S WRITINGS 

Lenin put the greatest value on Stalin's writings. In 1911 he expressed himself as follows: "Kobi's articles deserve the closest attention. It is difficult to imagine a better refutation of the opinions and hopes of our pacifiers and our conciliators." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 45 

SOME PEOPLE WANT TO DISTORT THE ROLE OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 

A large number of people did not wish to push things further than the overthrow of the historic muck-heap surmounted by a hedged-in crown, further than by replacing the hereditary dictatorship of Peter the Great's descendants by a middle-class government professing to be democratic, to which would be returned in rotation two or three Parties all equally democratic in word and anti-democratic in deed; with a President instead of an Emperor, an armchair instead of a throne. No difference except the erasure of a few coats of arms, slight alterations in the flag and the postage-stamps, and, at the beginnings of almanacks and directories, a change in the personnel charged with keeping the people in subjection. And the dictatorship of proletariat and, in consequence, social justice sinking head first into this republican mixture. And the system of endemic warfare and the exploitation of man by man remaining intact. A fresh lie, in fact, a fresh political crime against the people. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 50 

LENIN AND STALIN BEGAN TO CREATE A STATE WITHIN A STATE 

Lenin brought into existence what one might call duality of power: a Socialist State within the State. Side-by-side with the official Government, he created another Government, fully constituted, having its form in the Petrograd Soviet, functioning and consolidating itself, quite ready to become the only one. And the mass of workers openly began to prefer this Government to the official Government beside it. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 51 


LENIN REMAINED IMPASSIVE WHEN FACING THOSE STALIN CALLED THE HYSTERICS 

...against those whom Stalin called "the hysterics," that is to say the revolutionary-Socialists and the Anarchists (Spiridovna threatening Lenin with the revolver at a meeting; Lenin remaining quite impassive, apparently almost amused.... 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 56 


STALIN CONTINUED THE IDEAS OF LENIN AND PROTECTED THEM 

"The proletariat must have a clear objective (a programme) and a definite line of action (tactics)," said Stalin, who always acts according to his words. 
Since those days, Stalin has watched more jealously than ever over the unimpaired greatness of Leninism, which he had saved from intrigue at a moment when the great experiment of liberty, which had never ceased to make progress, had nevertheless not yet reached its full maturity; at a period at which the Soviet Revolutionaries and the proletariat were eagerly yet slowly giving life to the monumental new organism by a self-sacrifice comparable to a transfusion of blood. 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 191 


SOCIALISM FAVORS MAXIMUM OF GOOD OVER MINIMUM OF EFFORT 

Besides, the whole of Socialism itself tends strictly towards "Maximum of good with minimum of effort." 
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 225 


REVOLUTIONARY INTELLECTUALS OFTEN PUT THEIR EGOS ABOVE THE CAUSE 

...But the revolutionary intellectuals, time and again in moments of crisis, have shown their tendency to put personal prestige before everything else, and to fight to the bitter end against political opponents, even if this sacrifices the very principles that they were verbally accepting. 

Pritt, Denis Nowell. The Moscow Trial was Fair. London: " Russia To-day," 1937, p. 10 


It a surely of such men that Mao was thinking when he wrote: "All wisdom comes from the masses. I've always said that intellectuals are the most lacking in intellect. The intellectuals cock their tails in the air, and they think, 'If I don't rank No. 1 in all the world, then I'm at least No. 2.'" 

Spence, Jonathan D. Mao Zedong. New York: Viking, 1999, p. 159 


STALIN WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE GREY BLUR IN SOVIET HISTORY TROTSKY SAID HE WAS 

Far from being a "grey blur," he was gaining the respect and confidence of members, as was shown at the Seventh Party Conference in late April 1917, when he received the third highest number of votes after Lenin and Zinoviev in the secret ballot for the Central Committee. 

Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, p. 92 

Trotsky, in one of his articles, wrote about Stalin's lack of creative input from 1900 to 1910. This assertion is unjust. Stalin was not only an activist; he also aspired to the role of theoretician, at least on the Transcaucasian level. From 1900 to 1910 he wrote quite a few articles and pamphlets,... But it is incorrect to speak of a complete absence of creative output on Stalin's part. 

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 30 


Much has since been written in order to belittle or to exaggerate Koba's role in those days [imprisonment in the early 1900s]. This suggests that at the age of 22 he was already some sort of 'grey eminence' in the underground of his native province. He was certainly not the undistinguished member of the rank-and-file, the nonentity, described by Trotsky. 
Deutscher, Isaac. Stalin; A Political Biography. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967, p. 50 

When the Seventh Party Conference assembled toward the end of April 1917, the membership was approaching 80,000.... Stalin was elected to the Central Committee and his current stature in the Party was attested to by the fact that in the secret balloting he received 97 of the 109 delegate votes. Only Lenin with 104 and Zinoviev with 101 were ahead. The barely known Caucasian of 1912, the man whom five weeks earlier it had been proposed should be kept out of the Party councils because of his bad temper and manners, was now freely acknowledged by his fellow Bolsheviks to be the leading "practitioner" in 

the Party. In the turbulent months ahead Stalin remained at the center, one of the principal leaders of the Party, though only a secondary figure of the Revolution. 

Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 141 

But those who concluded that he was a 'grey blank' simply demonstrated their ignorance of central party life. 

Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 132 

True, he was not a gray blur or a mediocrity or the "creature of the party bureaucracy" claimed by Trotsky in later years. 

Laqueur, Walter. Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations. New York: Scribner's, c1990, p. 9 


TROTSKY SAYS LENIN LIKED STALIN’S FIRMNESS & CHARACTER NOT HIS CREATIVITY & IDEAS 

As Trotsky wrote later: 

"...What Lenin valued in Stalin was his character, firmness, tenacity, insistence, and partly also his craftiness. He valued these as indispensable qualities in a fight. Independent ideas, political initiative, or creative imagination he did not expect or demand of Stalin." 

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 64 

Undoubtedly he [Lenin] valued certain of Stalin's traits very highly, his firmness of character, his persistence, even his ruthlessness and conniving, attributes indispensable in struggle and consequently at Party Headquarters. 

Trotsky , Leon , Stalin. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941, p. 373 


LENIN WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT STALIN’S HEALTH 

Lenin's attitude toward Stalin was so benevolent in the years 1918-1921 that he personally concerned himself with finding a quiet apartment for him in the Kremlin. He reprimanded Ordjonikidze for disturbing Stalin while the latter was on vacation in the Northern Caucasus. Lenin asked for a doctor to be found to treat Stalin and asked that he'd be sent the doctor's conclusions about Stalin's health. 

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 67 


LENIN WAS HARSH IN DEBATES WITH OPPONENTS 

This is what Yakubovich says about him [Lenin] in his memoirs; 

"Lenin was harsh in his polemics with ideological opponents; he never liked to use a conciliatory tone or to gloss over conflicts; he made a definite point of any disagreements he had with other party figures. 

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 137 


STALIN WAS THOROUGHLY ANTI-CAPITALIST 

I am profoundly convinced that Stalin never sought to restore capitalism. 

Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 599 


LENIN WAS AN EXCELLENT DEBATER 

While his [Lenin] speeches were swift and fluent and crowded with facts, they were generally as unpicturesque and unromantic as his platform appearance. They demanded sustained thought and were just the opposite of Kerensky's. Kerensky was a romantic figure, an eloquent orator, with all those arts and passions which should have swayed, one would think, "the ignorant and illiterate Russians." But they were not swayed by him. Here is another Russian anomaly. The masses listened to the flashing sentences and magnificent periods of this brilliant platform orator. Then they turned around and gave their allegiance to Lenin, the scholar, the man of logic, of measured thought and academic utterance.
Lenin is a master of dialectics and polemics, aggravatingly self-possessed in debate. And in debate he is at his best. Olgin [a publicist who left Russia for the U.S. in 1914 and wrote a number of articles and books about the USSR] says: "Lenin does not reply to an opponent. He vivisects him. He is as keen as the edge of a razor. His mind works with amazing acuteness. He notices every flaw in the line of argument. He disagrees with, and he draws the most absurd conclusions from, premises unacceptable to him. At the same time he is derisive. He ridicules his opponent. He castigates him. He makes you feel that his victim is an ignoramus, a fool, a presumptuous nonentity. You are swept by the power of his logic. You are overwhelmed by his intellectual passion." 
Lenin aimed primarily at the intellect, not at the emotions. 
Williams, Albert R. Through the Russian Revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1967, p. 32 

LENIN TRANSLATES ENGLISH INTO RUSSIAN 

When Lenin stepped down, Podvoisky announced, "An American comrade to address you." The crowd pricked up its years and I climbed upon the big car. 
"Oh, good. You speak in English," said Lenin. "Allow me to be your interpreter." 
"No, I shall speak in Russian," I answered, prompted by some reckless impulse. 
... I wanted to tell them that if a great crisis came I should myself be glad to enlist in the ranks of the Red Army. I paused, fumbling for a word. Lenin looked up and asked, "What word do you want?" "Enlist," I answered. "V stupit." He prompted. 
Williams, Albert R. Through the Russian Revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1967, p. 34

LENIN WAS FIERCE TOWARD HIS ENEMIES IN DEBATE AND ARGUMENTS 

Lenin is sincere even with his avowed enemies. An Englishman, commenting on his extraordinary frankness, says his attitude was like this: "Personally, I have nothing against you. Politically, however, you are my enemy and I must use every weapon I can think of for your destruction. Your government does the same against me. Now let us see how far we can go along together." 
Williams, Albert R. Through the Russian Revolution. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1967, p. 41 

LENIN SHOWERS OPPONENTS WITH INVECTIVE AND INSULTING LABELS 

As is well known, Lenin generously showered his opponents in debate with insulting invective and spiteful labels. 
Berezhkov, Valentin. At Stalin's Side. Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Pub. Group, c1994, p. 344 

STALIN SAYS MARX DID NOT TOTALLY DISCOUNT HEROES MAKING HISTORY 

...The extreme simplicity which is his distinguishing characteristic would be a matter of course in a man of intelligence if he ran no risk of megalomania. For the cult carried on about him is as ridiculous as that in Rome and Berlin. Hence, when I asked him why he tolerated the busts and photographs in all the shop windows in contradiction to the Marxian theory that the masses, not individuals, make history, he replied:...
"You are mistaken! Your own theory, namely that individuals make history, stands in Marx's Poverty of Philosophy. Yet not in the way the imagination conceives, but according to the circumstances into which those men are born. Great men are only valuable in proportion to their grasp of circumstances; otherwise they become Don Quixotes. For that matter, Marx does not contrast men and circumstances; he never denied the role of the hero. So far as I can judge, men certainly make history." 
Ludwig, Emil. Three portraits: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. New York Toronto: Longmans, Green and Company, c1940, p. 117-118 


STALIN DISPENSED JUSTICE FAR MORE FAIRLY THAN TROTSKY 

In Tsaritsyn he dealt cruelly with some of the military specialists: many were dismissed, some imprisoned and then shot. About the same time Trotsky was using similar measures against Bolsheviks at another segment of the front. A local commissar was executed, as were 26 men who had deserted, and he accompanied the executions with an order that in case of mass desertion or unauthorized withdrawals it would be the commissar who would be shot first. What could impress itself on the mind of some of the more primitive Communists was that Stalin was shooting "gentleman" for treason, while Trotsky was killing honest Communists for such a relative trifle as disobeying orders. 
Ulam, Adam. Stalin; The Man and his Era. New York: Viking Press, 1973, p. 173 

LENIN FIGHTS TO CHANGE THE PARTY’S NAME TO COMMUNIST PARTY 

All, with the exception of Lenin, decided to retain the title of the Social-Democratic Bolshevik Party. It was more than a year before Lenin's "professional revolutionaries" consented to describe themselves as Communists. 
Delbars, Yves. The Real Stalin. London, Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 79 

STALIN DID NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW LENIN 

Yet again Dzhughashvili had spoken confidently for Bolshevism without automatically consenting to everything advocated by Lenin. He acknowledged him as his faction’s leader. But his obedience was not blind: Dzhughashvili thought his direct daily experience of the Russian Empire kept him in closer touch with revolutionary possibilities than the emigres. 
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 63 

On 7 November 1939 Stalin said: "The slogan of "the United States of Europe" was mistaken. Lenin caught himself in time and struck that slogan. 
Dimitrov, Georgi, The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 1933-1949. Ed. Ivo Banac. New Haven: Yale University Press, c2003, p. 121 

STALIN AND LENIN AGREE ON ALMOST EVERY ISSUE 

The reason why Lenin chose Stalin was less administrative than political. He wanted one of his allies in a post crucial to the maintenance of his policies. 
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 190 

The matters dividing them[Lenin and Stalin] were not of primary importance despite what was said by Lenin at the time (and despite what has been written by historians ever after). Stalin and Lenin agreed about basic politics. Neither questioned the desirability of the one-party state, its ideological monopoly or its right to use dictatorial and terrorist methods. They concurred on the provisional need for the NEP. They had also reached an implicit agreement that Stalin had an important job in the central party apparatus to block the advance of the Trotskyists and tighten the whole administrative order. Lenin had trusted him with such tasks. Stalin had also been the comrade in whom he had confided when he wanted to commit suicide. Whenever toughness was needed, Lenin had turned to him. Not once had there been a question of basic principle dividing them, and they had worked well together since the trade union dispute. Lenin had been behaving bizarrely in the summer of 1922 before he fell out with Stalin. But it was Stalin who had to deal with him. His difficulties with Lenin would have tested the patience of a saint....
Their quarrels about Georgia and about the state monopoly of foreign trade touched matters of secondary importance. 
Service, Robert. Stalin. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2005, p. 195 

LENIN COMPLIMENTS STALIN AS A SPLENDID GEORGIAN 

We have a splendid Georgian staying with us here who is writing a long article for Prosveshcheniye [Enlightenment], after garnering all the Austrian and other material. We will bear down on it." The reference was to Stalin. Gorky, long connected with the party, knew all its leading cadres well. But Stalin evidently was utterly unknown to him, since Lenin had to resort to such an impersonal, although flattering expression as "a splendid Georgian." This is, by the way, the only occasion when Lenin characterized a prominent Russian revolutionist by the token of his nationality. 
Trotsky, Leon, Stalin. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1941, p. 154 

TESTAMENT DOES NOT DENOUNCE STALIN ON IDEOLOGY 

It was at this period, however, that Lenin drafted his famous "Testament," which undoubtedly reflects his forebodings with regard to Stalin's brusqueness but says not one word in criticism of his policy.... Nor did Stalin challenge him on his return to activity in the latter part of the year. On the contrary, it appeared they were in complete accord.... 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 146 

There is no criticism in a [A OR THE] document--Lenin's testament--of Stalin's policy, but only this delineation of personal qualities, 
That Stalin deeply felt Lenin's personal criticism is certain. For more than 20 years Lenin had been his teacher and he a faithful disciple. But he could "take it." He has many of the qualities of the master. He is no yes-man. He has deep convictions, tremendous will-power and determination, and--could Lenin have lived long enough to see it--a patience which at times seems inexhaustible. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 151 

...although subsequent events proved that he [Lenin] had over-estimated Trotsky and underestimated his "wonderful Georgian." 
When he [Stalin] read it [Lenin’s Testament] to the 13th Congress of the Party and commented, "Yes, I [Stalin] am rude to those who would destroy Lenin's party, etc..," he shifted the issue from one of good manners to the larger battle -- ground of the principles, aims and role of the Party as the leader of the Revolution. 
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 154 

There began already at that time, though not openly, the struggle between Trotsky and Zinoviev for the succession to Lenin. But there was discussion also as to what was going on at Lenin’s house at Gorky, in other words about Stalin. Thus it was almost a sensation when Kamenev brought the news that Lenin had broken with Stalin, and had written to Stalin dismissing him. Before long, however, the sensation shrank to its true proportions. It turned out that the actual personal difference had nothing to do with politics: Lenin had charged Stalin with rudeness and tactlessness toward his wife Krupskaya. It is easy to imagine that. It appears that Stalin never had any great opinion of Lenin’s wife. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 106 

Lenin's "testament" is, of course, favorable for the most part to Stalin; compared with the assessments given the others, the one of Stalin was the most positive.... But Lenin had for the entire preceding period given many descriptions of Trotsky, and they were entirely negative.... 
Stalin was, of course, distinguished by rudeness. He was a very blunt person. But if not for his harshness I don't know how much good would have been accomplished. I think harshness was necessary, otherwise there would have been even greater vacillation and irresolution. 
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 213 


This addendum to Lenin's testament was read after his death to a plenary meeting of the Central Committee. 
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 108 

Khrushchev's treatment of the relations between Stalin and Lenin concentrates on Lenin's growing apprehension of Stalin's bureaucratic methods in 1923. He omits Lenin's earlier admiration for Stalin and his forwarding of Stalin's career in the Party dating back at least to 1912. Nor does he note that Lenin's later attacks on Stalin were made when Lenin was ill and cut off from Party activity, and that even then, in his "testament," he considered Stalin to be one of the outstanding Party leaders, his faults not those of "non-Bolshevism"--as with Trotsky--but of an over-bureaucratic method of work and personal "rudeness." The fact that people who had "worked with Lenin" were executed means little unless we know who the people were and why they were executed. The fact that people worked with Lenin does not mean they were pro-socialist, as witness Kamenev & Zinoviev, both of whom Lenin condemned in his "testament." 
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 124 

[In the Testament] neither his [Stalin] orthodoxy as a party man nor his loyalty to Lenin were called to question. 
Graham, Stephen. Stalin. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1970, p. 90 

Another strange thing: of all those mentioned in the letter Stalin appears in the most favorable light. He is the one Lenin accuses of rudeness and intolerance, but that was never regarded as a fault in the proletarian party. 
Radzinsky, Edvard. Stalin. New York: Doubleday, c1996, p. 208 
++146