Trotsky and the Spanish Civil War starting ww2

[IchBinDieKaiser]

I was having a discussion with some friends and ideas of alternate history came up. Such as an idea of Leon Trotsky succeding Lenin and become soviet premier, dictator of the proletariet, or what ever title he chose to use. We got into discussing what kind of things he would do as leader of the soviet union.

. There seemed to be a concensus that Trotsky would not have purged the military. I believe this is so, are there any disagreements?

. There also seemed to be a concensus in the idea that Trotsky would be much more interventionist. Would Trotsky be more interventionist in the military conflicts in other countries? Would he send more aid to the communists in China and Korea, or possibly even send soldiers?

This second thought led us to the idea that if the Soviet Union militarily intervened in the Spanish Civil War with soviet troops fighting along side of the Republicans. This idea lead to the thought that this could very well spark ww2.

. With Germany, France, and Britain sending aide to the Nationalists, could this spark a ww2?

. If it could spark ww2, what would the alliances be?

What does the community think?

 

[Timmy811]

Even then it would just be a proxy war.

 

[Shevek23]

I like Trotsky. Just wanted to put that up front.

Realistically, though, he never had a chance at becoming the leader of the Bolsheviks.

For one thing, he wasn't always a Bolshevik. Until he went over to Lenin in 1917, he was a Menshevik. And the old Bolsheviks had no trouble remembering that, and resenting him for it.

For another, he had been the leader given charge of organizing the Red Army. One might think that would give him extra clout, but as Marxists, the Bolsheviks poured over European revolutionary history, especially the history of the French Revolution, and were on the lookout to avoid the pitfalls historical revolutions had fallen into. They were concerned to avoid the rise of a Russian Napoleon, and Trotsky looked like he might fit the description. So, they'd be very wary of him for that reason.

And of course he was Jewish. Lots of Bolsheviks were, and other Jewish Bolsheviks rose to very high positions in the movement. But I'm afraid it wasn't an accident that none of them ever took a position of supreme leadership. To be bigoted is bad Marxist-Leninism to be sure. But there it was.

Trotsky enjoyed great prestige (which I think he earned) as a right-hand man of Lenin. Left on his own in these politically shark-infested waters, I'm afraid he was doomed.

Had he somehow been nevertheless chosen as the supreme leader, I don't know that he could have done a lot differently than Stalin. He would doubtless have done so with a more elevated style, and for that reason perhaps his leadership would be doomed, because Stalin's sneakier style might have been just the thing for putting over the policies that actually were implemented, where a more open and consistent leadership that publicly aired its ideological dirty laundry might have completely undercut the movement's credibility.

But Russia faced some very grim realities in the aftermath of the devastation of the Civil War, and Lenin's solution of NEP posed some serious challenges to the legitimacy of the Bolshevik revolution itself. Part of the whole premise of the October Revolution was the confident expectation that Russia's revolution would merely be the trigger of a much larger European (perhaps also American) proletarian uprising, and at least some developed capitalist nations would wind up on the Red side of the barricades. These European regimes would become the true center of gravity of the Communist movement. Without that, with Russia forced to develop its own industry on their own and from a ruined base at that, the Leninist leadership was at sea. The Civil War had cost them a lot of their best people. NEP, which Lenin adopted because he saw no alternative, always threatened to empower others with a very different class outlook than the Bolsheviks.

 

[The Marauder]

I think the amount of effort required for him to actually maintain power in the Soviet Union would be more than enough to make him realize he needed to moderate his tendencies. Externally and internally.

He'd probably allow many more volunteers into Spain during the Civil War, buff up supplies, etc.

Consequently, he would be condemned much more harshly than Stalin was for his involvement. Subtly because he's Jewish and obviously because, well, he's Trotsky.

I think Trotsky would have a more difficult time courting the likes of Mao however. Dealing with Hitler (because there will be a degree of that no matter what) will also be much more limited, perhaps we could see an attack by Germany much sooner?

I'm starting to deviate from the Spanish War, but I have doubts on WWII being started in Spain, if it does, I expect it to be very unlikely the U.S. ever gets involved.

 

[Cash]

Assuming Hitler still comes to power in Germany, how would Trotsky's Jewishness affect his planning? Would he be as likely to sign a non-aggression pact, or would Trotsky's increased intervention in the Spanish Civil War push events toward a more general European war sooner than OTL? Without Stalin's purges of the Army officer corps, Trotsky might have a stronger military to back a more interventionist foreign policy. A stronger Soviet military might also give Hitler pause in any future Barbarossa.

 

[The Marauder]

Assuming Hitler still comes to power in Germany, how would Trotsky's Jewishness affect his planning? Would he be as likely to sign a non-aggression pact, or would Trotsky's increased intervention in the Spanish Civil War push events toward a more general European war sooner than OTL? Without Stalin's purges of the Army officer corps, Trotsky might have a stronger military to back a more interventionist foreign policy. A stronger Soviet military might also give Hitler pause in any future Barbarossa.

I don't think the Jewishness would have much of an effect. Hitler displayed a bit of pragmatism OTL, dealing with the Bolsheviks in the first place as well as the Japanese. If anything, he just publicly denounces the Bolsheviks even more, and Germans latch onto his rhetoric more so due to an apparent Jew at the head of the Soviet Union.

Molotov-Ribbentrop goes ahead as planned, in an appropriate incarnation. Depending on the state of the military in the Soviet Union though at that point, we could see a different chain of events. Admittedly, I don't know much about how Trotsky would reform the Red Army (which it would need regardless of Stalin or Trotsky), but if its somewhat decent by the time Poland is invaded, maybe the Soviets make the first strike? Germany makes fantastic advances early but is doomed in the end like OTL.

How would that affect the negotiating position at the end of the war. Here is where things start to really deviate. I don't see Trotsky talking with Western leaders quite as much, nor cooperating.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

How would that affect the negotiating position at the end of the war. Here is where things start to really deviate. I don't see Trotsky talking with Western leaders quite as much, nor cooperating.

this of course leads to the debate of just how important lend lease was to the red army and the USSR during the war.

 

[Cash]

this of course leads to the debate of just how important lend lease was to the red army and the USSR during the war.

Would the USA be as quick to include the USSR or as generous in Lend Lease with a leader who openly disdains western capitalism? Not that Stalin was any great American hero or anything, but Trotsky for some reason has always struck me as more of an ideologue who favored the political over the pragmatic.