|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 10, 2024 9:48:39 GMT
If Lev Trotsky succeeded Lenin, would his tule be as brutal as that of Stalin or considerably less so? Would the Great Purge, the Gulags and the Holodomor be avoided?
What I can say for sure is that there would be more support for communist movements worldwide due to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution The Red Army should also receivr more funding due to this, at least in the 1920s and early 1930s.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,366
|
Post by lordroel on May 10, 2024 9:55:17 GMT
If Lev Trotsky succeeded Lenin, would his tule be as brutal as that of Stalin or considerably less so? Would the Great Purge, the Gulags and the Holodomor be avoided? What I can say for sure is that there would be more support for communist movements worldwide due to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution The Red Army should also receivr more funding due to this, at least in the 1920s and early 1930s. Is Stalin death ore alive, if alive, Trotsky reign will be short. |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on May 10, 2024 10:10:56 GMT
If Lev Trotsky succeeded Lenin, would his tule be as brutal as that of Stalin or considerably less so? Would the Great Purge, the Gulags and the Holodomor be avoided? What I can say for sure is that there would be more support for communist movements worldwide due to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution The Red Army should also receivr more funding due to this, at least in the 1920s and early 1930s. Is Stalin death ore alive, if alive, Trotsky reign will be short. He's dead then... |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 11, 2024 22:03:14 GMT
It seems that things may become only better.
We may see more attempts to meddle in the politics of other states, like the SU did in Germany and Bulgaria in 1923. Worldwide revolution and all that. Doesn't mean they'd be successful.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 12, 2024 14:31:24 GMT
I would say that if Trotsky wins the succession battle and Stalin has an accident then the USSR might have a distinctly shorter life. Trotsky was a markedly better military leader but he seems to have been a lot more ideologically driven. It was his idea for the no war no peace approach in late1917 early 1918 where the regime refused to make peace but also made no serious attempt to make war either. [Which might not have been possibly anyway as the Bolshevik propaganda against the war which had done so much to undermine the Provisional Government meant the army was collapsing]. This is what made possible the massive German advances before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Similarly as Otto said Trotsky was far more in favour of world revolution so a Trotsky USSR is likely to allocate markedly more resources to such actions rather than building up the economic base and prompting more opposition from the neighbouring powers. True he might not be as ruthlessly murderous against ordinary people rather than figures he thinks are in his way but I wouldn't rely on that either without markedly better knowledge of his and his character.
|
|
corjomc
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 30
Likes: 6
|
Post by corjomc on Sept 29, 2024 2:00:26 GMT
Trotskyite Russia's best hope may be slim but if enough revolutions succeed.
If the Great Depression throws enough people to the cause.
If the dominoes continue to fall then maybe the USSR can survive longterm.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 29, 2024 12:39:34 GMT
Trotskyite Russia's best hope may be slim but if enough revolutions succeed. If the Great Depression throws enough people to the cause. If the dominoes continue to fall then maybe the USSR can survive longterm.
Agree but I think it would be a slim chance. Especially given Trotsky's more supportive role for spreading revolution will generate more hostility from conservative forces and the bulk of the regions surrounding the US as deeply conservative socially so that's going to take a lot of fighting and could prompt responses from other powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 2, 2024 3:23:56 GMT
I would say that if Trotsky wins the succession battle and Stalin has an accident then the USSR might have a distinctly shorter life. Trotsky was a markedly better military leader but he seems to have been a lot more ideologically driven. How so? Stalin also made many decisions justified by ideology and nothing else. Lysenkoism. The introduction of "self-criticism" which to me looks like institutionalized bullying.
That's the problem with Marxism (and in fact any ideology based on Hegelian dialectics): You can justify anything and the opposite of it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 2, 2024 12:12:28 GMT
I would say that if Trotsky wins the succession battle and Stalin has an accident then the USSR might have a distinctly shorter life. Trotsky was a markedly better military leader but he seems to have been a lot more ideologically driven. How so? Stalin also made many decisions justified by ideology and nothing else. Lysenkoism. The introduction of "self-criticism" which to me looks like institutionalized bullying.
That's the problem with Marxism (and in fact any ideology based on Hegelian dialectics): You can justify anything and the opposite of it.
I agree that like any absolution ideology its a stupid system. However Trotsky was committed to world revolution, which would have involved continued tensions if not conflicts with other nations. You might see further classes with its neighbours, say with the Japanese staying in eastern Siberia and your unlikely to see some American investment that did occur OTL. Might not even see the co-operation with Wiemar Germany on secret military projects.
With Stalin he did some very stupid things but he did enforce rapid industrialization which while the way he did it alienated many of the population, as 1941 showed it did give a basis for the Soviet recovery from the horrors and destruction of the civil war and then the Nazi invasion. Also he promoted the idea of 'socialism' in one country which eased tensions with the rest of the world more than Trotsky would have. The USSR was still very much a pariah state in the 1930's to most of the world but less so than it would have been under a Trotsky who was continually seeking to prompt revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 2, 2024 12:34:44 GMT
If Lev Trotsky succeeded Lenin, would his tule be as brutal as that of Stalin or considerably less so? Would the Great Purge, the Gulags and the Holodomor be avoided? What I can say for sure is that there would be more support for communist movements worldwide due to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution The Red Army should also receivr more funding due to this, at least in the 1920s and early 1930s. But would the support for revolution abroad get any different results. If the soil is not fertile your plants will not grow. I assume Trotsky was still expecting revolution by worker-revolutionaries party activity with organizational aid, not simply marching in Red Armies and the calling *that* revolutions. What do you think? The example against militarism coming to mind is I think he thought the goal of militarily getting to Warsaw, much less German soil, that Lenin had in mind was unrealistic. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Oct 2, 2024 15:03:08 GMT
If Lev Trotsky succeeded Lenin, would his tule be as brutal as that of Stalin or considerably less so? Would the Great Purge, the Gulags and the Holodomor be avoided? What I can say for sure is that there would be more support for communist movements worldwide due to Trotsky's belief in permanent revolution The Red Army should also receivr more funding due to this, at least in the 1920s and early 1930s. But would the support for revolution abroad get any different results. If the soil is not fertile your plants will not grow. I assume Trotsky was still expecting revolution by worker-revolutionaries party activity with organizational aid, not simply marching in Red Armies and the calling *that* revolutions. What do you think? The example against militarism coming to mind is I think he thought the goal of militarily getting to Warsaw, much less German soil, that Lenin had in mind was unrealistic.
I'm thinking it wouldn't but that it would distract resources from internal matters and also upset a lot more people than OTL meaning even more opposition.
Interesting point about the war with Poland. Didn't know that thanks. Possibly he had learnt something from his avocation of no war/no peace in 1917-18 which enabled the Germans to take some much territory before the B-L treaty. However I was thinking of him seeking to promote internal revolutions that the USSR might then support rather than having large armies invading neighbours. That would definitely be a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 3, 2024 0:55:43 GMT
Trotsky didn't want to take Warsaw? OK, he thought that the Poles were a professional army, which the Red Army hadn't faced so far.
Back to the question: If the Japanese expansion into Manchuria won't be butterflied away, he may decide to attack them. Maybe his best chance - an attack in Europe or the Middle East would rally the rest of the world against him, but Japan would have few friends.
This'd depend on many things however - would he strengthen Soviet industry as IOTL (it'd be a sane decision), which tanks would the Red Army have, would he side with Chiang or rather Mao?
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 3, 2024 1:32:10 GMT
Trotsky didn't want to take Warsaw? OK, he thought that the Poles were a professional army, which the Red Army hadn't faced so far. Back to the question: If the Japanese expansion into Manchuria won't be butterflied away, he may decide to attack them. Maybe his best chance - an attack in Europe or the Middle East would rally the rest of the world against him, but Japan would have few friends. This'd depend on many things however - would he strengthen Soviet industry as IOTL (it'd be a sane decision), which tanks would the Red Army have, would he side with Chiang or rather Mao? Trotsky definitely favored mass industrialization. He probably would have started sooner than Stalin. Stalin first sided with the Right opposition against rapid industrialization advocated by Trotsky and the Left, then when he marginalized Trotsky and co, he stole their program and turned on the Right and Bukharin. So Trotsky would not have neglected the industrial base for a military. An earlier Collectivization 5 Year Planning effort might see a bit less value gained for effort invested/money spent. In retrospect, OTL's timing of the 5 Year Plan, shortly before before the Great Depression, was near ideal. The Great Depression made western technical expertise and machinery the Soviets were hiring and purchasing for their development programs far, far cheaper and more available, since the industrial countries were having such a bad domestic investment and international trade environment. |
|
