Trotskyist Vietnam (A potential TL)

During the summer of 1945 the situation in Vietnam was confused. The Japanese had surrendered but the allied forces haven't yet arrived to occupy Vietnam. In the North, the Stalinist, led by Ho Chi Minh, were in almost cplete control, while in the south they were much weaker, they were many other organizations, mainly nationalists and religious. One of the strongest groups in the south, especially among the urban workers, were the Trotskyists, led by Ta Thu Thau.

Historically, when British and French forces arrived, the Stalinists, under orders from the Kremlin, collaborated with the Allies, and assassinated many of the leading Trotskyists, including Ta Thu Thau.

The PoD is that the Vietnamese Stalinists, coerced by the Kremlin, start collaborate with the French and British before Allied troops arrive on Vietnam. This makes them lose the trust of the Vietnamese people, which allows the Trotskyists to gain control over Vietnam, creating a democratic socialist state.

Soon, more countries join the Vietnamese: the first is Ceylon (there was a very large Trotskyist party there OTL), the southern, more industrialised (especially at the coast) parts of China (Shanghai and southern) which becomes divided between the Stalinist under Mao and the Trotskyists under Wang Fanxi (?).

After that Yugoslavia undergoes a "silent coup" by Milovan Ðilas, who symphaises with the Trotskyists, and Tito is kept in a golden cage, honored but ignored. After 1956 (or an equivalent, it dosen't have to happen in the same year), the Hungarians join the Trotskyist camp too.

How will the Trots survive in the beggining without suffering an invasion? Generally the same way Tito did: by playing East and West against one another. They also enjoy the symphaties of many social democrats and democratic socialists, which provide crucial aid against interventions by the west. What more, since the Trotskyists will, at the beggining, fight only Stalinists, the US will not intervene and prevent the French from doing the same, in order to not strengthen the Stalinist Camp. The US will view Ta Thu Thau as a "bastard but our bastard", like they viewed Tito, which will turn out to be wrong.

So what do you think about this rough sketch? Is it, or parts of it, ASB? If I get a good feedback, I'll research more and write this TL.

I don't know enough about Vietnamese or Sri Lankan history to comment on the POD, Yugoslavia and southern China becoming Trotskyist wouldn't happen. Tito was too popular and his supporters dominated the Party, which is why Dilas was expelled after saying that a new ruling class was forming. If he tried a coup they would hang him. As for China, by a POD of 1945 Mao had become too powerful. He had Soviet backing, troops, and popular support. By contrast the Chinese Trotskyists had no foreign support, no army, and most of their base of support sided with Mao. If China is going to split at all it will be between Mao and Chiang, not Mao and Wang Fanxi.

As for the future Vietnam I know enough about the Vietnam war to discuss that. The US would not stop the French, nor would the French listen if the US tried to. A Trotskyist Vietnam would also seek to destroy French rule and any non-Communist Vietnam, and spread the revolution throughout Asia. The US will never accept this, and socialists and social democrats are not a large or influential group in the US, so their opinion will be completely ignored.

Still the idea of a Trotskyist Vietnam is interesting, but the proposed effects are implausible.

Sorry, support from Sri Lanka Trotskyists is no substitute for the PRC and the USSR, without whose aid the Viet Minh could not have won (in particular after 1949 they benefited from having the PRC on their border).

David T said:

Sorry, support from Sri Lanka Trotskyists is no substitute for the PRC and the USSR, without whose aid the Viet Minh could not have won (in particular after 1949 they benefited from having the PRC on their border).

Click to expand...

I can only see something grandiose happening with a breakdown in elements of the major capitalist world order. Simultaneous PCF, PCI, KKE "go, and go with your own good conscience" orders in 1944 might help. This might be as insane as it seems, 1947-1949 seems to have been a half hearted go order. Then again my reading is they were tail-ending workers, at least in Australia.

Can't see a 1944 go order where the Vietnamese are excluded though. Unless the PCF wins rapidly. And even then, I doubt that a prescient attitude that the PCF will be just like the old boss will appeal to Southern vietnamese workers resenting the fish sauce tax.

And of course a 1944 order that is "go with your own conscience" is going to diversify actually existing Stalinism, particularly if the PCI get anywhere, or end up with martyr-intellectuals.

yours,
Sam R.

David T said:

Sorry, support from Sri Lanka Trotskyists is no substitute for the PRC and the USSR, without whose aid the Viet Minh could not have won (in particular after 1949 they benefited from having the PRC on their border).

Click to expand...

But in this TL, there is no Vietnam War, since:
A. The Trots take much quicker control over all of Vietnam.
B. Both sides of the cold war see Vietnam as much less of a threat than it realy is for both of them.
C. The trots have the good senses to lay low for a while, for example, offering recompansation on nationalised american property.
D. Trotskyists Vietnam is a democracy, which means that it much harder to justify an invasion, and the trots have tge support of social democrats.

ArieNE said:

But in this TL, there is no Vietnam War, since:
A. The Trots take much quicker control over all of Vietnam.
B. Both sides of the cold war see Vietnam as much less of a threat than it realy is for both of them.
C. The trots have the good senses to lay low for a while, for example, offering recompansation on nationalised american property.
D. Trotskyists Vietnam is a democracy, which means that it much harder to justify an invasion, and the trots have tge support of social democrats.

Click to expand...

The problem is the French and Americans aren't going to give up Vietnam to a bunch of colonies. Even though they're Trotskyists to the Americans a Red is a Red, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Also Trotskyite Vietnam would not be a democracy. It would be a Communist dictatorship, just like Trotsky had helped Lenin create in the Soviet Union. They may talk about democracy and the rights of man, but the minute they start to encounter resistance they will turn to the tried and true method of terror.

Napoleon IV said:

I don't know enough about Vietnamese or Sri Lankan history to comment on the POD, Yugoslavia and southern China becoming Trotskyist wouldn't happen. Tito was too popular and his supporters dominated the Party, which is why Dilas was expelled after saying that a new ruling class was forming. If he tried a coup they would hang him. As for China, by a POD of 1945 Mao had become too powerful. He had Soviet backing, troops, and popular support. By contrast the Chinese Trotskyists had no foreign support, no army, and most of their base of support sided with Mao. If China is going to split at all it will be between Mao and Chiang, not Mao and Wang Fanxi.

As for the future Vietnam I know enough about the Vietnam war to discuss that. The US would not stop the French, nor would the French listen if the US tried to. A Trotskyist Vietnam would also seek to destroy French rule and any non-Communist Vietnam, and spread the revolution throughout Asia. The US will never accept this, and socialists and social democrats are not a large or influential group in the US, so their opinion will be completely ignored.

Still the idea of a Trotskyist Vietnam is interesting, but the proposed effects are implausible.

Click to expand...

Ya your'e right, sadly no trot china or yugoslavia. But maybe Tito will still ally with the trots, just because of intersts.

Another reasons there will be no invasion, besides those mentioned above: the Trots will take over the whole of vietnam quickly, so if any western power tries to invade, they will have to do it "from scratch", with no ready logistical center like they had OTL. Also, this the summer of 1945. The "reds" are still viewed favorably after WWII ("Uncle Joe"), the second red scare hasen't began, and the Domino Theory is not prominent, and Truman haden't yet issued the "Truman Doctrine".

actually trot china is possible, the original founder of the CCP was an ardent Trotskyist, Chen Duxiu.

Bolivia, Argentina, and Ceylon are all also places with mass-supported trot parties.

also, not trying to start an argument or flame in the slightest, but the notion that Lenin nor Trotsky believed in democracy is not founded in reality nor in any real of the mens' beliefs or theories.

It's not like the men "instituted a regime of terror." They had to implement semi-authoritarian measures at the time to stop the hostile forces of the proto-fascist and monarchist white army (which were numerous and supported by international factions.) Many regimes, even ones supported by people with a pro-bourgeoisie point of view, have done this in the past in the justification of stability. The only difference is a pro-dictatorship faction led and essentially created by a power-hungry madman was able to take the reigns before any of this could be reversed. Stalin was essentially the main man calling the shots as soon as Lenin's body hit the dirt.

Red Cesar said:

actually trot china is possible, the original founder of the CCP was an ardent Trotskyist, Chen Duxiu.

Bolivia, Argentina, and Ceylon are all also places with mass-supported trot parties.

Click to expand...

But by 1945 China wasn't going to go Trotskyist. And 1945 is the POD.

Napoleon IV said:

But by 1945 China wasn't going to go Trotskyist. And 1945 is the POD.

Click to expand...

Easily altered by an earlier POD if he wants to make a legitimate TL.

also don't know why my earlier post initially posted before I was finished.

As much as I would like to see Chen Duxiu's legacy continued, that is sadly ASB. Unless (light bulb turned on), It happens indirectly: Chiang Kai-Shek, with increased support from the US, manages to hold on to southern China. He then continues to be a mega-douche, and a successful repeat of the Shanghai Commune kicks him to Taiwan, Which means will have three Chinas (again). But if that is ASB too, I'll live with that.

Bolivia will be the first to fall to the trots in Latin America, followed by Argentina. Which will be lead by J. Posadas. Well that is until he really goes off the bend and is replaced.

Find a way to keep his authority from being usurped by Mao and It should be doable.

Mao meets an early end maybe?

Also about Trotsky: I honestly believe that he is the most polarising historical figure in AH.com. However I think we should separate between Trotsky of 1917-1924 and the Trotsky of 1924-1940. I think it is undeniable that the second Trotsky was "democratic" (perhaps hypocrtically, again, it depends on your opinion). Anyway this about a Trotskyist Vietnam that happens five years after his meeting with an ice ax, so wether he believed in democracy or no is a bit irrelevant.

I think that Chiang will survive in the south because of huge weapon shipments from the US (I think thay had enough surpluses from WWII).

Red Cesar said:

Easily altered by an earlier POD if he wants to make a legitimate TL.

Click to expand...

Good point. My only worry would be that such a POD could change the nature of East Asian Communism, i.e. no United Front.

Red Cesar said:

also, not trying to start an argument or flame in the slightest, but the notion that Lenin nor Trotsky believed in democracy is not founded in reality nor in any real of the mens' beliefs or theories.

It's not like the men "instituted a regime of terror." They had to implement semi-authoritarian measures at the time to stop the hostile forces of the proto-fascist and monarchist white army (which were numerous and supported by international factions.) Many regimes, even ones supported by people with a pro-bourgeoisie point of view, have done this in the past in the justification of stability. The only difference is a pro-dictatorship faction led and essentially created by a power-hungry madman was able to take the reigns before any of this could be reversed. Stalin was essentially the main man calling the shots as soon as Lenin's body hit the dirt.

Click to expand...

Except that Zinoviev (one of Lenin's closest associates and in some ways more moderate than Lenin) said "We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."

This was reflected in their policies during the Russian Civil War. For example 50,000 White soldiers were massacred in Crimea after they were promised amnesty if they surrendered. Torture was routine and included sealing prisoners in barrels that had nails facing inward and rolling them, or tying prisoners to planks and slowly pushing them into furnaces. Many civilians were taken as hostages and often shot.

And the idea that the Bolsheviks only directed their terror at the Whites is false. Striking workers were often murdered, in one case a few thousand were thrown into rivers with stones wrapped around their necks. When workers in Kronstadt/Petrograd rose up to demand greater freedoms the Bolsheviks responded by brutally suppressing them. Thousands were murdered or thrown in prison camps.

OK guys, we all have our opinions on Trotsky, and no one is gonna change them because of a flame war, so please, don't derail the thread.

Now I think the consensus is that this TL is, generally, not ASB. So i will soon start writting this TL. The name will be "The Struggle", named after the influential Vietnamese Trotskyist newspaper and the group around it , "La Lutte".

Zinoviev is also noted to not really have a substantial political opinion of his own apart from being the yes-man of the current Soviet-leadership. He was Lenin's go to bitch-boy up until Trotsky's potential in the party was realized, and from then on out actively collaborated with Kamenev to discredit him to the point of actively supporting Stalin when his rule began, simply because he was the leader with the most leverage at the time.

As well, that quote refers to the notion that the bourgeoisie are actively hostile to the interests of the Revolution, and therefore attempted to bring about the end of the recently created state in a violent and hostile manner. The claim to annihilate them is more in line with the traditional Marxist notion of breaking the power of the Bourgeoisie class, (Which usually consists of the redistribution of their assets and their conversion to members of the working class, despite many of them being held on for managerial positions in the new soviet state) rather than actual terror or murder. Just so happens that most of these guys resisted to the death to protect their material wealth, often going to heavy lengths to bring about the destruction of the newborn state.

As I said, Authoritarian measures were taken during the civil war, but this was a make it or break it time for the Soviet Union and those were actively hostile forces. I'm not condoning the soviet leaderships actions at the time, but these were more than commonplace for conflicts of that era and century. Instances of this kind occurring during Civil Wars and Revolutions the world over have been documented, whether it was Revolutionary France or America. Torture was a common practice during war-time, and I'd still argue that the majority of those civilians who were straight shot by the reds were bourgeoisie collaborating kulaks and actively conservative peasants. This doesn't make it right, but it does make sense in a time of war. I have also yet to see an unbiased figure supporting or disproving of mass civilian casualties during the RCW, apart from those actively collaborating, and again this is biased as it comes from a Soviet POV.

Again, I never said that it was strictly implemented against the whites, you're mincing my words. I said that authoritarian measures were implemented DUE to the civil war with white forces and their attempted overthrow of the state. In times of war civil dissent can make or break the war effort, so its quiet obvious these steps were taken to ensure the stability of the state at the time and prevent its downfall. Never mind the fact that the majority of the striking leaders were effectively led by Left SR's, who had actively attacked the Bolshevik leadership in a physical manner on more than one occasion, and were pissed off that the Soviet's had closed the constitutional assembly to prevent infighting during the duration of the civil war.

ArieNE said:

OK guys, we all have our opinions on Trotsky, and no one is gonna change them because of a flame war, so please, don't derail the thread.

Now I think the consensus is that this TL is, generally, not ASB. So i will soon start writting this TL. The name will be "The Struggle", named after the influential Vietnamese Trotskyist newspaper and the group around it , "La Lutte".

Click to expand...

I agree on both points. With Trotsky I say we all agree to disagree. I think that certainly this looks to be an interesting TL.

Fun fact before we start: in the Saigon municipal elections of 1939, The trots won 80% of the votes, while the stalinists got 1%.

I like the idea of this, I think you might be a bit hopeful about some of the changes to China resulting from a Trotskyist Vietnam, I'm not really sure how much effect they could have had, but it's cool the idea of Sri Lankan Trotskyism growing stronger as a result. It's also be interesting to see the effect on the Indonesian and Philippine socialist movements. I look forward to it.

Red Cesar said:

Again, I never said that it was strictly implemented against the whites, you're mincing my words. I said that authoritarian measures were implemented DUE to the civil war with white forces and their attempted overthrow of the state. In times of war civil dissent can make or break the war effort, so its quiet obvious these steps were taken to ensure the stability of the state at the time and prevent its downfall. Never mind the fact that the majority of the striking leaders were effectively led by Left SR's, who had actively attacked the Bolshevik leadership in a physical manner on more than one occasion, and were pissed off that the Soviet's had closed the constitutional assembly to prevent infighting during the duration of the civil war.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised the Left SRs were leading strikes, given that the Bolsheviks had basically launched a coup and removed their elected government... (October Revolution.)