NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that the Soviet Union would have become the world power that it did under Stalin's rule, if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead?

No, but I think that communism would have spread a lot more around the world, and indeed that they would probably have won WW2 regardless, due to Trotsky's great skill as a commander.

Yes, I think so. Stalin's collectivization program really was a failure; it did nothing but disrupt economic output and kill millions of people that could have been used productively.

Had Trotsky deferred collectivization in favor of other models, industrialization would have been possible in a far more organized and efficient manner; the rural economy would be sufficiently developed to encourage urbanization, and there would already be an infrastructure in place to accelerate the electrification projects initially developed under GOLERO.

In addition, the developments would be focused more in areas where they were needed rather than in Siberia (which reflected the placement of the GULag system more than anything), allowing a more rapid and effective distribution of resources. Although this would possibly reduce the ability of Soviet industry to relocate rapidly as it did in the early days of WWII, it would be compensated by a better, less disruptive, supply network as well as a population that would almost certainly be considerably more supportive of continued Soviet rule as well as less likely to support any potential invaders.

I checked Wiki to learn more about him... and I have a question.

Why does it show his signature using the roman alphabet?

I checked Wiki to learn more about him... and I have a question.

Why does it show his signature using the roman alphabet?

Most likely because the source of the signature was a letter written to a US socialist journal, and so was presumably in English.

(Unlike Stalin, Trotsky was well-traveled and well-educated, and spoke several languages quite well in addition to his native Ukrainian and Russian.)

Well, I imagine that the Soviet Union would continue with the New Economic Policy under Trotsky, I'm fairly sure he was into the serfdom --> capitalism --> socialism ---> communism teleology. So, with that in mind, I would have thought the Soviet Uniuon would continue to industrialise under the New Economic Policy, and probably just as much as Stalin's collectivisation did. Only without the side effect of mass famine that was the result of rural collectivisation. The economy might well have run soother without as much bureaucracy which I don't think would have appeared without central planning and Stalin consolidating power within the Communist Party rather than the organs of the state.

And I agree with Yootopia, Trotsky would have won the Soviet side of the Second World War.

Do you think that the Soviet Union would have become the world power that it did under Stalin's rule, if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead?

No. As much as I despise Stalin's dictatorship, I cannot bring myself to think that Trockij would have performed very good as CCCP's leader. His idea about pressing for the world revolution at that time would have had the result of uniting all major powers (USA, Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, France) in a military crusade against the Soviet Union.

Yes, I think so. Stalin's collectivization program really was a failure; it did nothing but disrupt economic output and kill millions of people that could have been used productively.

Had Trotsky deferred collectivization in favor of other models, industrialization would have been possible in a far more organized and efficient manner; the rural economy would be sufficiently developed to encourage urbanization, and there would already be an infrastructure in place to accelerate the electrification projects initially developed under GOLERO.


I'm not sure if Trotsky's economic plans would have been any better, I think they may have been worse. I mean, Trotsky was far more ideological than Stalin and possibly even Lenin, I'm pretty sure that he stuck so far with his view of world socialism that he opposed the NEP and wanted to revert back to another form of war communism, despite a more liberal approach to the market being probably the only way out of the severe economic depression Russia was facing in the 20s.

I'm not sure if Trotsky's economic plans would have been any better, I think they may have been worse. I mean, Trotsky was far more ideological than Stalin and possibly even Lenin, I'm pretty sure that he stuck so far with his view of world socialism that he opposed the NEP and wanted to revert back to another form of war communism, despite a more liberal approach to the market being probably the only way out of the severe economic depression Russia was facing in the 20s.
Exactly, and the fact that he was on very good terms with the military and students worried the rest of the Politburo to no end.

Although he loosened up on the NEP a bit when he saw how well it was actually working, and saw that collectivisation would have to wait until about the early 1930s before being realistically feasible.

That said, he was an expert in the art of Making Shit Up, so maybe his policies would have been largely the same as Stalin's if and when he got to power.

I'm going follow along with Yootopia and Vetalia's basic outline of a Trotsky led Soviet Union, and develop from there.

While Trotsky would have likely pressed much harder for a world-wide revolution, he has always been a political pragmatist, as his record during the Civil War proves, he was quite willing to sacrifice idealism for political pragmatism. What the effect this would have had on the world is impossible to guess.

While it would definitely piss the Western Powers off, it isn't likely that they would have acted. The West had largely given up on reversing the Russian Revolution by 1921 because the sheer distances plus the weight of popular opinion at home made any campaign ludicrously expensive, especially given the fact that Europe was still exhausted from WWI, and the US was busy tending to its own imperial ambitions in the Pacific and the Americas.

One longer term side effect is that it would have been much harder for Western politicians to mount an effective propaganda crusade against communism without having Stalin's forced collectivizations and purges to parade around. Trotsky was never the political manipulator that Stalin was, and would not have been able to build the power base necessary for such campaigns. Indeed, it may even be possible that some sense of genuine democracy might have returned to the USSR by the late 20s or early 30s.

World War II would have likely been a decisive allied victory. Without Stalin's disastrous purging of the Red Army, particularly of such military geniuses like Marshal Tchaikovsky (probably one of the best tank and mobile armor strategists of the interwar period), and Trotsky's better understanding of military affairs, Hitler's ambitions would likely not have gone as far as they did.

Post WWII would likely bring a softening of relationships between the West and the USSR, with the growth of perhaps mass based Communist movements in Western countries, even the US. What would come of that is impossible to tell. If the US did not have the opportunity to use the atom bomb during WWII, the Cold War might not have started at all, or at the very least not started with as great of urgency.

Even if it did, the likelihood of a Cold War greatly diminished.

Considering that Stalin played very importnant role in start of World War II (without Molotov-Ribbendrop Pact invading Poland would had been extremely problematic for Hitler), its hard to say how it would had went without him.

particularly of such military geniuses like Marshal Tchaikovsky (probably one of the best tank and mobile armor strategists of the interwar period)

Marshal Tchaikovsky would had a little chance aganist Generalfeldmarschall Beethoven and Oberst Wagner.

Do you think that the Soviet Union would have become the world power that it did under Stalin's rule, if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead?

The USSR would have been infinitely better off, since Stalin was an incompetent moron it was only a world power because it managed to scrape together the benefits of Lenin's being in power as well as Trotsky's co-rule during the '20s.

I'm going follow along with Yootopia and Vetalia's basic outline of a Trotsky led Soviet Union, and develop from there.

While Trotsky would have likely pressed much harder for a world-wide revolution, he has always been a political pragmatist, as his record during the Civil War proves, he was quite willing to sacrifice idealism for political pragmatism. What the effect this would have had on the world is impossible to guess.
To some extent he was willing to give up his idealism, but I'd be a wee bit careful of dismissing his idealist nature.
While it would definitely piss the Western Powers off, it isn't likely that they would have acted. The West had largely given up on reversing the Russian Revolution by 1921 because the sheer distances plus the weight of popular opinion at home made any campaign ludicrously expensive, especially given the fact that Europe was still exhausted from WWI, and the US was busy tending to its own imperial ambitions in the Pacific and the Americas.
Quite.
One longer term side effect is that it would have been much harder for Western politicians to mount an effective propaganda crusade against communism without having Stalin's forced collectivizations and purges to parade around. Trotsky was never the political manipulator that Stalin was, and would not have been able to build the power base necessary for such campaigns. Indeed, it may even be possible that some sense of genuine democracy might have returned to the USSR by the late 20s or early 30s.
I would personally doubt this - Trotsky said that anyone not going to work in the Civil War should be taken out and shot, and with his extremely high-powered friends in the Red Army, this could have been plausibly done.

I think that there would still have been some degree of purging, especially of those to the political right of himself, to be fair.
World War II would have likely been a decisive allied victory. Without Stalin's disastrous purging of the Red Army, particularly of such military geniuses like Marshal Tchaikovsky (probably one of the best tank and mobile armor strategists of the interwar period), and Trotsky's better understanding of military affairs, Hitler's ambitions would likely not have gone as far as they did.
I think you mean Marshall Tukhachevsky.

SS-Obergruppenführer Bach would not be best pleased.
Post WWII would likely bring a softening of relationships between the West and the USSR, with the growth of perhaps mass based Communist movements in Western countries, even the US. What would come of that is impossible to tell. If the US did not have the opportunity to use the atom bomb during WWII, the Cold War might not have started at all, or at the very least not started with as great of urgency.

Even if it did, the likelihood of a Cold War greatly diminished.
Hard to say, really, seeing as Trosky aimed to stir things up, which Western Europe didn't like much.

The USSR would have been infinitely better off, since Stalin was an incompetent moron it was only a world power because it managed to scrape together the benefits of Lenin's being in power as well as Trotsky's co-rule during the '20s.
Nah, Stalin did put in some serious effort, and from being a piss poor state in 1917, by 1945 it was second only to the US. His industrial reforms, although painfully put through, did have a genuinely huge effect on the industrial power of the USSR.

I would personally doubt this - Trotsky said that anyone not going to work in the Civil War should be taken out and shot, and with his extremely high-powered friends in the Red Army, this could have been plausibly done.

I think that there would still have been some degree of purging, especially of those to the political right of himself, to be fair.

No doubt there would be purging, but Trotsky was never the political manipulator, much less one of Stalin's caliber. He had connections, but he was not very good at leveraging opponents against each other and aggrandizing power for himself and his allies. He wouldn't likely have the power to make himself undisputed master of the USSR.

I think you mean Marshall Tukhachevsky.

SS-Obergruppenführer Bach would not be best pleased.

*sigh* The one time I think I spell his name correctly...

Anything that makes Herr Bach's life harder is fine by me.

Hard to say, really, seeing as Trosky aimed to stir things up, which Western Europe didn't like much.

Indeed. Counterfactual reasoning is really just a bunch of rampant speculation.

Trotsky was infinetely inept, he would have gotten the Soviet Union annexed by Nazi Germany while the Western powers looked on and smiled, remember that during the WWI negotiations with Germany, Trotsky wanted to declare 'revolutionary war' and invade all Europe, Trotsky was the ultimate 'red imperialist'.

I don't see the Soviet Union surviving in any other hands other than Stalin's, he had the iron will to fighting the class war against the kulaks and tsarists in the army, and other counter-revolutionary traitors sabotaging Soviet industry. The kulaks in Ukraine let 10 million of their countrymen starve to death while they hoarded grain to speculate on higher prices in foreign capitalist markets, and later collaborated and helped recruit for the Russian SS division during the WWII occupation of the Ukraine.

Trotsky would have been soft on the class enemies, and would have promoted bourgeois economists into the Soviet planning divisions (as he tried to do). Trotskyism isn't Marxism, it's basically a spiritualist/idealist cult, I knew some Trots once and their 'internationalist' jargon etc is naive and impractical, their like the Scientologists of the communist movement.

The USSR would have survived a little longer, but would eventually fall. Communism just dosen't work.

The kulaks in Ukraine let 10 million of their countrymen starve to death while they hoarded grain to speculate on higher prices in foreign capitalist markets,If Stalin hadn't ordered the grain taken from those 10 million people, they wouldn't have starved to death.

and later collaborated and helped recruit for the Russian SS division during the WWII occupation of the Ukraine.Given that conditions were so deplorable, it is understandable that the Nazis were greeted as liberators.

Trotsky was infinetely inept, he would have gotten the Soviet Union annexed by Nazi Germany while the Western powers looked on and smiled, remember that during the WWI negotiations with Germany, Trotsky wanted to declare 'revolutionary war' and invade all Europe, Trotsky was the ultimate 'red imperialist'.


Not really, he didn't want to invade Europe, he thought world socialism was inevitable. He just wanted to spread revolutionary ideals and press groups into revolution across Europe.


Trotsky would have been soft on the class enemies, and would have promoted bourgeois economists into the Soviet planning divisions (as he tried to do).

No he didn't, he hated a liberal approach to the market, hence his opposition to the NEP.