While it is agreed that Leonid Nikolaev shot Sergei Kirov in 1934, the reasons behind it is still a controversial topic. To this day, Historians have varying perspectives and beliefs regarding the motives and causes behind the murder of the Communist. While analyzing the factors regarding Nikolaev’s actions, there is far more evidence viewing Stalin as playing a larger role. The extent in which Stalin was able to manipulate this situation makes it unlikely to be a coincidence. However, “Svobodnaya Mysl” reasons that Nikolaev had a personal motive, and “Kirov Murder Mystery” explains the evidence of Nikolaev’s planning. On the other hand, “The Crime of The Century”, describes how Kirov’s security was suspiciously altered in the last month of his life, and “The Revolution eats its children” describes the building tension between Stalin and Kirov.
One perspective regarding the Kirov case is that Nikolaev is the only one behind the assassination. Evidence claims that Nikolaev was likely to assassinate Kirov due to his unstable personality. As an epileptic with a grudge against the Soviet Party, Nikolaev had a motive. Nikolaev had been reprimanded for not taking a particular job the Party wanted him to take therefore they expelled him, making him mad at the party Counter-revolutionary statements found in his personal diary suggest motives planned as a mark of protest against the policies of the Party as well as the Soviet State. In a statement made by his wife, M. Draule (December 11th 1934) explains how “after his exclusion from the party….turned into a harfdcore anti-soviet Terrorist”. Nikolaev even went as far to write a Counter Revolutionary letter to the Politburo in 1934, as an answer to the Party and Fatherland. Apparently according to his wife, Nikolaev had become obsessed with the the preparation of future acts of terrorism.Another argument, regarding Nikolaev’s motives explains a personal grudge. Reports in his personal diary claim to exhibit Nikolaev believed his wife had a possible affair with Kirov. Therefore the assassination was an act of desperation, and far more personal. However, there is limited evidence to explain why Nikolaev would think this.
While many arguments suggesting the murder was part of one of Stalin’s bigger plots, Kirov supported Stalin and never truly challenged him. Kirov had a reputation of being one of Stalin’s most unwavering associates, and his loyalties were made clear during the Seventh Congress, even though their ideologies weren’t identical. Although there are several rumours of Kirov challenging Stalin, in fact when approached by party leaders regarding the possibility of taking over Stalin’s position as General Secretary, Kirov firmly refused. However, although Kirov never faced a direct threat, Stalin was never known as one to take chances. Yet, despite the insensitivity of Stalin’s personality, reports claim he was emotional about the assassination. An angry and shocked Stalin arrived in Leningrad, claiming that shot was fired at the party. However, the extent Stalin was able to use this assassination could be unlikely coincidence. As an unstable man, with a personal motive, it is reasonable to believe he solely planned this murder, or he was a smart assassin for Stalin to hire.
Opposing to the perspective that Nikolaev was the sole assassination in Kirov’s case, other historians believe Stalin played a larger role. Stalin may have eliminated Kirov in fear of losing popularity. Although Kirov never directly challenged Stalin, his popularity was dramatically increasing. As some members of the Party became dissatisfied with Stalin’s pushy methods, they began to turn to Kirov. In the February 1934 elections, almost 300 members of the Communist party voted against Stalin, whereas only 3 votes against Kirov. There was also growing tension among the two as in the Summer of 1934 requisitioned scarce food for workers in Leningrad, making him increasingly popular. However, he did this without permission, undermining Stalin’s authority. Another aspect contributing to the growing tension between Kirov and Stalin was the difference in ideology. Although they had relatively similar ideologies one main aspect contrasted. Kirov wanted to abolish terror within the party, whereas Stalin wanted to get rid of those with “the spirit of criticism”. The increasing popularity of Kirov within the party, would have given Stalin a motive to eliminate him.
Another particular aspect of this case was the suspicious decrease in Kirov’s security in the last few months of his life. With Kirov’s security guards not in a close enough radius at all times, it made it opportune for an attack. However, whether this was intentional or not is not concluded. In relation to security, another sceptical aspect is in regard to the release of Nikolaev. Shortly before the assassination, Nikolaev was caught stalking Kirov with a gun in his briefcase and was arrested. However, he was quickly released and was even given his gun back. Yet again, it is difficult to analyze whether this was intentional or not, yet one can conclude that if they though Kirov’s security was priority they would have gone to further measures.
Further evidence pointing towards Stalin as a influencer in the assassination of Kirov is in regards to the evidence after the fact. Some argue it was suspicious how quickly Stalin and his subordinates were able to rush to the crime scene, to investigate while the NKVD was fully equipped to do. Some perceive the rapid actions of Stalin as a sign of further planning and organization. However, one could argue that this was no ordinary case, as it was one of Stalin’s close comrades. The confessions after the fact, can also be evidence suggesting Stalin was more than just a witness. In Nikolaev’s confession he pointed toward the NKVD workers claiming they “forced (him) to do it”, and even claimed Stalin “promised (him) (his life” if he followed through. However, the confessions regarding this case still have mixed stories. Almost directly after the assassination, propaganda by the Party was produced into the public, aimed to evoke sympathy and rally support. Stalin was able to manipulate this event to justify one of the largest purges in history. However, whether this is a coincidence or not is still argued amongst historians.
Historians continue to discuss and analyze the reasoning behind Kirov’s assassination. Whether Nikolaev was the sole instigator of the murder, or whether Stalin organized it is still undecided. Although official documents are limited, there is far more evidence suggesting Stalin played a larger role. Although Nikolaev seems like an unstable man, it seems unlikely that he didn’t have support. From the fear of opposition, to the after effects of the assassination, it seems far to beneficial for Stalin for it to be a coincidence. However, the far more relevant aspect regarding this case is the after effects. The way Stalin was able to manipulate it for his own person benefit seems far more significant then whether he planned it.