|
|
Post by shadow007 on Nov 26, 2022 17:36:19 GMT
Trotsky would do things differently. But he was a complete monster and much more warlike than Stalin. Of course, we got some pretty horrific events in that part of the twentieth century so just some butterflies could easily make things a lot better. That said, a more aggressive USSR could have led to a lot of horror as well. That said, Trotsky was even more of an ideologue so I could also imagine the whole thing just falling to pieces. That's why Bukharin is the best possible leader. He wasn't extreme compared to Stalin or Trotksy No Holdomor, No Great Purge and much better prepared for the Japanese on 1938 and later the Axis on 1941. Holocaust kils fewer people! WW2 ends much earlier with much fewer Allied/Soviet/Chinese losses. Soviet Union spends much less on nukes and military but rather economic boosting. NATO too spends less on military and more on helping their people |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 27, 2022 8:08:50 GMT
Trotsky would do things differently. But he was a complete monster and much more warlike than Stalin. Of course, we got some pretty horrific events in that part of the twentieth century so just some butterflies could easily make things a lot better. That said, a more aggressive USSR could have led to a lot of horror as well. That said, Trotsky was even more of an ideologue so I could also imagine the whole thing just falling to pieces. That's why Bukharin is the best possible leader. He wasn't extreme compared to Stalin or Trotksy No Holdomor, No Great Purge and much better prepared for the Japanese on 1938 and later the Axis on 1941. Holocaust kils fewer people! WW2 ends much earlier with much fewer Allied/Soviet/Chinese losses. Soviet Union spends much less on nukes and military but rather economic boosting. NATO too spends less on military and more on helping their people He would certainly have been better for the USSR. I however wonder if he could have kept the hardliners in check and how much he could have steered the internal dynamics of the USSR. Without the vast military and security apparatus the USSR would also fall earlier and might have less of an empire. Which, to be fair, is a very good thing because that state was always going to be a mess. The best that could have happened was far more moderate people taking over and walking back more and more like in China. And perhaps, with a lot of luck and the like, there could even have been democratisation. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow007 on Nov 27, 2022 16:38:02 GMT
That's why Bukharin is the best possible leader. He wasn't extreme compared to Stalin or Trotksy No Holdomor, No Great Purge and much better prepared for the Japanese on 1938 and later the Axis on 1941. Holocaust kils fewer people! WW2 ends much earlier with much fewer Allied/Soviet/Chinese losses. Soviet Union spends much less on nukes and military but rather economic boosting. NATO too spends less on military and more on helping their people He would certainly have been better for the USSR. I however wonder if he could have kept the hardliners in check and how much he could have steered the internal dynamics of the USSR. Without the vast military and security apparatus the USSR would also fall earlier and might have less of an empire. Which, to be fair, is a very good thing because that state was always going to be a mess. The best that could have happened was far more moderate people taking over and walking back more and more like in China. And perhaps, with a lot of luck and the like, there could even have been democratisation. That is false. Overspending on the military is what killed the USSR plus corruption Bukharin would have solved both problens early on plus since he would rule the Soviet Union a decade longer than Stalin did his reforms and economic growth would be permanent In this scenario the Soviet Union doesn't lose 25 Million people in WW2 plus the 3 Million in Holdomor. WW2 deaths would be closer to 3 Million |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,965 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 27, 2022 16:44:26 GMT
Bukharin would have solved both problens early on plus since he would rule the Soviet Union a decade longer than Stalin did his reforms and economic growth would be permanent In this scenario the Soviet Union doesn't lose 25 Million people in WW2 plus the 3 Million in Holdomor. WW2 deaths would be closer to 3 Million Lets not go down this road with saying different hardline communist in power of the Soviet Union would do any better than Stalin, we do not know that as he died in 1938. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 27, 2022 17:01:10 GMT
He would certainly have been better for the USSR. I however wonder if he could have kept the hardliners in check and how much he could have steered the internal dynamics of the USSR. Without the vast military and security apparatus the USSR would also fall earlier and might have less of an empire. Which, to be fair, is a very good thing because that state was always going to be a mess. The best that could have happened was far more moderate people taking over and walking back more and more like in China. And perhaps, with a lot of luck and the like, there could even have been democratisation. That is false. Overspending on the military is what killed the USSR plus corruption Bukharin would have solved both problens early on plus since he would rule the Soviet Union a decade longer than Stalin did his reforms and economic growth would be permanent In this scenario the Soviet Union doesn't lose 25 Million people in WW2 plus the 3 Million in Holdomor. WW2 deaths would be closer to 3 Million The Soviet Union without Stalin still had lot's of issues because the core ideology required a dysfunctional economic system which means a strong security apparatus is needed to keep it propped up. Without that, it falls far more easily but with it it will fall more harshly. In many ways, WW2 gave it a longer lease on life because of how terrible it was. But, it was the USSR that fought back and won. So, lots of people felt more loyalty towards it. Otherwise, I honestly think that the whole thing could have come down in the fifties already. The extra people means more young people who actually want something out of life and that happens at a time where it becomes easier to see that other parts of the world have it much better in terms of living standards. And without the big danger to point to, why keep the USSR around? Economic growth actually is pretty hard to achieve in a planned economy once you have done some basics. Central planning is much more wasteful and that waste quickly adds up. Planned economies also encourage corruption because that's one of the few ways to actually obtain what you want and need, both on a small and on a large scale. So I don't see it surviving in the long run. Which, to be fair, would be a very good thing for (nearly) everyone involved. |
|
|
|
Post by shadow007 on Nov 27, 2022 18:01:08 GMT
Bukharin would have solved both problens early on plus since he would rule the Soviet Union a decade longer than Stalin did his reforms and economic growth would be permanent In this scenario the Soviet Union doesn't lose 25 Million people in WW2 plus the 3 Million in Holdomor. WW2 deaths would be closer to 3 Million Lets not go down this road with saying different hardline communist in power of the Soviet Union would do any better than Stalin, we do not know that as he died in 1938. He did opposed collectivization of farming in Real Life believing it would caused a famine. It was the main reason he split with Stalin The NEP was Lenin's idea and it worked. Bukharin wanted to keep that idea There would be no Holodomor under Bukharin |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 27, 2022 20:43:37 GMT
Lets not go down this road with saying different hardline communist in power of the Soviet Union would do any better than Stalin, we do not know that as he died in 1938. He did opposed collectivization of farming in Real Life believing it would caused a famine. It was the main reason he split with Stalin The NEP was Lenin's idea and it worked. Bukharin wanted to keep that idea There would be no Holodomor under Bukharin Yes. There would be no holodomor. But someone who can be a close ally of Stalin and who could rise to the top in the Soviet Union wouldn't be the kind of person who would shy away from shedding blood. And he wasn't deposed just because Stalin was powerful. It was because there was a lot of support on the left even after the Left Opposition was gone. The trigger for Stalin pushing for collectivisation was grain shortages in 1928, which happened under the NEP. Of course, keeping it and moving closer to a more sane economic system would have been much better but would also have been very hard to do for the Soviets at that time. Especially because their hold on power wasn't felt to be very secure yet. |
|
