USSR under Trotsky.
- Thread starter Ameck16
- Start date
If Trotsky takes over, you change the face of WWII completely. The most likely result is the USSR going down in flames due to overstretch in an attempt to spread the global revolution as Trotsky wanted to do or said attempts to spread the revolution pissing off the rest of Europe. If the latter happens, you could probably speed up European integration significantly.
I do not know much about Trotsky,but when I asked my history teacher about this once,he basically said that the USSR is trading one crazy nut job for another.
Last edited:
That's a very big question that relies a lot on how he actually came to power. Because trotsky spent his career scorning the middle strata of the beauracracy that put Stalin in power. How does he beat them?
The question though of "what does he do if he comes to power" though can probably be answered pretty easily because he answered it himself in The Revolution Betrayed. And generally summing that up Trotsky's policy would be very different in key aspects, first and foremost being that he was against the power of the bureaucracy and will almost certainly try to destroy their political influence and power. His international policy is up for grabs really depending what you think of Permanent Revolution, I'd say the likeliest reality is that he'd be the head of what would remain a pariah state outside of communist led governments, but his leadership of he Commintern might mean there's actually another communist revolution in Europe (in which case all bets are off because then Soviet Policy shifts from being leader of the revolutionary cause to being an ally of a more advanced revolutionary nation, which will also likely totally shift the balance of power across the Soviet Union because it means that things are immensely easier for them on every economic front).
Assuming that doesn't happen though, he was in favor of gradual collectivization primarily of large estates rather than hard and brutal total collectivization (which he considered to be a reckless policy that served to bring back the conditions of the civil war for little gain). He was culturally libertine and in favor of modernistic ideas about science, sex, and culture. So the Soviet Union is unlikely to re-illegalize homosexuality and "conservative" art like ballet, realist painting, and classical music are unlikely to receive nearly as much state sponsorship. I half expect some kind of compromise on the NEP which kills the NEP Men but retains semi-market relations (probably with some kind of state managed distribution corporation replacing them). The Army will face a major restructuring.
With the pressure off of civil war Trotsky fully intended to restructure the military along more socialist lines. Stuff like officers being elected for training over a proper professional officer corps, the abolition of Officer privileges, the use of skilled Soviet officers from the civil war training a new officer corps, and the adoption of something similar to Revolutionary War Doctrine from Reds as the official war policy.
In my opinion all of this is better policy than what Stalin ended up putting in place. But I'm a Trotskyist so that's kind of obvious that I'd have this position.
The question though of "what does he do if he comes to power" though can probably be answered pretty easily because he answered it himself in The Revolution Betrayed. And generally summing that up Trotsky's policy would be very different in key aspects, first and foremost being that he was against the power of the bureaucracy and will almost certainly try to destroy their political influence and power. His international policy is up for grabs really depending what you think of Permanent Revolution, I'd say the likeliest reality is that he'd be the head of what would remain a pariah state outside of communist led governments, but his leadership of he Commintern might mean there's actually another communist revolution in Europe (in which case all bets are off because then Soviet Policy shifts from being leader of the revolutionary cause to being an ally of a more advanced revolutionary nation, which will also likely totally shift the balance of power across the Soviet Union because it means that things are immensely easier for them on every economic front).
Assuming that doesn't happen though, he was in favor of gradual collectivization primarily of large estates rather than hard and brutal total collectivization (which he considered to be a reckless policy that served to bring back the conditions of the civil war for little gain). He was culturally libertine and in favor of modernistic ideas about science, sex, and culture. So the Soviet Union is unlikely to re-illegalize homosexuality and "conservative" art like ballet, realist painting, and classical music are unlikely to receive nearly as much state sponsorship. I half expect some kind of compromise on the NEP which kills the NEP Men but retains semi-market relations (probably with some kind of state managed distribution corporation replacing them). The Army will face a major restructuring.
With the pressure off of civil war Trotsky fully intended to restructure the military along more socialist lines. Stuff like officers being elected for training over a proper professional officer corps, the abolition of Officer privileges, the use of skilled Soviet officers from the civil war training a new officer corps, and the adoption of something similar to Revolutionary War Doctrine from Reds as the official war policy.
In my opinion all of this is better policy than what Stalin ended up putting in place. But I'm a Trotskyist so that's kind of obvious that I'd have this position.
Last edited:
In all likelihood he'd rightly see Germany and Spain as the weakest regimes in Europe, and take a very active role in fermenting revolution in those countries. Which given how he's also probably the Communist leader most aware of the political necessities of planning a revolution alive, he probably will succeed in. Not least because the Soviet Union under him, even if it's not rich, will certainly be a more open society which holds a better looking alternative system than OTL.
Trotsky was not an idiot, which is something I will stress all the time in talking about him. He knew what the military realities of Europe were and knew the Soviets could not win in a straight up war against everyone. Permanent revolution in Trotsky's policy means a use of the Commintern not just as a means to prop up Soviet Foreign policy, but as a means of exporting revolutionary practices, experience, and other generalized support for revolution as a primary purpose of Soviet Foreign policy, under the understanding that it was impossible for them to build a sustainable Socialism in One Country. Once that happens though everything is changed, because it essentially alters the equation.
Last edited:
Trotsky would beat Stalin by not antagonizing the communist leadership by being so arrogant and then if he had Zinoviev and Bukharin on side he could have published Lenin's will and deposed Stalin from his seat of power.
As for a Trotsky run USSR there would be lots of international revolution shenanigans, especially in China and Germany but I couldn't see him modernizing the USSR to the degree that Stalin did.
As for a Trotsky run USSR there would be lots of international revolution shenanigans, especially in China and Germany but I couldn't see him modernizing the USSR to the degree that Stalin did.
I don't know how plausible a Trotsky Bukharin alliance could be when they were on opposite ends of every major question. I'd suspect the better allies for Trotsky would be people like Frunze and Kamenev (and thus probably Zinoviev). But in general I'm more in favor of just killing Stalin right out during the revolution. From there at least Trotsky has the benefit of being the extremely obvious successor to Lenin, and who knows, from a POD at the beginning of the revolution there's a lot of opportunities for Trotsky to actually take some kind of interest in gaining the support of the party instead of just antagonizing the commanding heights and appealing to he lowest strata of the population.
And I'd say it's actually a great slander to Trotsky that he would be considered the less reasonable alternative to Stalin, when Trotsky's criticism of Stalin's economic policy was largely based on how wasteful Stalin was in his crash industrialization and collectivization of farms.
From the readings of history I have done, the friction Trotsky encountered was because he was talented and did nothing to hide it or at least be humble (plus a touch of old fashioned antisemitism). Avoiding these kind of personality clashes would have been crucial to Trotsky's political survival.
I agree. I also think though that an alliance with Bukharin is straight out. Bukharin is likely to favor Stalin simply because Stalin represents the "party center" to his party right, rather than destroy the party center to the benefit exclusively of the parties extreme left.
What about getting Stalin out of the party chairmanship, which would rob him of his ability to build a power base and fill the USSR hierarchy with his creature?
I mean that's just as good, but Stalin's an evil fuck and you could easily find a better man to be the Peoples Secretary of Nationalities or General Secretary (Lev Kamenev being exactly the kind of inoffensive man the position was made for).
Another question that comes to mind though, if WW2 should arise will Trotsky be as ruthless as Stalin? Bear in mind that Trotsky showed quite the nasty streak during the civil war but was he as ruthless?
Given western paranoia about communism in OTL and Trotsky more likely to export communism than Stalin, it's not hard to imagine the west and Japan dogpiling the USSR.
Ancien Regime
Banned
They already tried that in OTL. Didn't work. The West is too exhausted to topple the USSR after WWI. And if Germany or Poland or France or Spain go Red, then that makes the Comintern that much stronger.
First, why even question if the architect of the red terror is too soft to lead a major war? And second I think you overestimate how necessary much of Stalins ruthlessness was. By and large it was the product of his ineptitude in preparing the country for war that forced the situation into being so cavalier with the lives of his people.
Anyway, if a rank opportunist like Stalin will fight to the bitter end it's hard for me to imagine that a revolutionary zealot who already has significant experience leading a military and nation on the brink of total collapse would probably do just fine. Really I'd think you'd be more likely to run into issues with him preparing for the previous war.
One idea I came up with, and I'll be making a timeline in a fortnight or so once I've finished my timeline and cast of characters is this...
1. Trotsky intrigues Stalin out of power somehow, the Trotskyite USSR has about 2/3 of Stalinist USSR's industrial power but + 33% agricultural power
2. Soviet military doctrine is like China in the Korean War, foot blitzkriegs with large infantry forces)
3. These attacks to the west and into China are made in tandem with powerful communist 5th columns in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece and China.
4. This world's WW2 ends a draw once the USA enters and theres a cold war where Trotskyite USSR is far more succesful in formenting rebellion in the west's colonies and in the African-American majority parts of America's deep south.
5. Non-communist Europe will become a collection of repressive monarchies (a la 1945 - 1979 Iran) or like the pro US military dictatorships of Latin America
1. Trotsky intrigues Stalin out of power somehow, the Trotskyite USSR has about 2/3 of Stalinist USSR's industrial power but + 33% agricultural power
2. Soviet military doctrine is like China in the Korean War, foot blitzkriegs with large infantry forces)
3. These attacks to the west and into China are made in tandem with powerful communist 5th columns in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece and China.
4. This world's WW2 ends a draw once the USA enters and theres a cold war where Trotskyite USSR is far more succesful in formenting rebellion in the west's colonies and in the African-American majority parts of America's deep south.
5. Non-communist Europe will become a collection of repressive monarchies (a la 1945 - 1979 Iran) or like the pro US military dictatorships of Latin America
Relating to my previous post a lot of this is based on Trotsky's more out of the box thinking pattern as compared to Stalin's more conservative mindset.