Trotsky in Command

[WatsonLadd]

Stalin had the ability to find Zhukov, recognize his abilities, and put him in charge. He didn't however take decisive action until it was almost too late, and this delayed response cost Russia dearly. Plus his purges had deeply weakened the armed forces.

What does a leader of the USSR who had a successful military career himself do to the success of Barbarossa? Obviously the political situation and hence starting point will look considerably different: the COMINTERN will not restrain itself from trying to push a revolution, but will definitely have opposed the Nazis all the way through, perhaps strengthening them in the west. The big question is the starting point for Barbarossa: invading from the east as the Nazis go in from the West is unlikely to be Trotsky's thing given his focus on revolution in the core capitalist countries over success in Russia, and such an act would only hurt the movement. OTOH a dirty trick where the Poles flee into what the Germans think is conquered territory and the Russians suddenly gain a large number of troops might appeal, but is very unlikely to work given the trust required.

Obviously this POD is far back enough that a number of political events will have been butterflied, but we know exactly what Trotsky would have done in the situations because he told us (at length!). The military side is more obscure.

So now the main course: how much better does Russia do this time?

 

[Salvador79]

You mean Trotsky instead of Stalin all the way? Most things about the war would be changed deeply beyond recognition. No Barbarossa equivalent. How Trotsky would face a massive Invasion is anyone's guess. Chances are that a similar pattern of early advances against an underprepared Soviet Union and then a reversal occurs, though.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... Chances are that a similar pattern of early advances against an underprepared Soviet Union ...

I suppose with Trotsky the USSR might be as badly prepared as OTL, but we ought to look at that question deeper. I don't think a better trained and organized Red Army can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

So now the main course: how much better does Russia do this time?

One way of trying to measure this is in terms of German losses inflicted. Between 22 June & 30 August 1941 German losses were approx. 390,000. If the Red Army is 25% more efficient at inflicting losses then the German take something approaching 480,000 casualties. That can lead to the question of how much higher losses need to occur to stall the attack significantly further west?

This can be reversed If Red Army/Air Force losses are 25% less how much more difficult is it for the attacker?

 

[fasquardon]

Stalin had the ability to find Zhukov, recognize his abilities, and put him in charge. He didn't however take decisive action until it was almost too late, and this delayed response cost Russia dearly. Plus his purges had deeply weakened the armed forces.

What does a leader of the USSR who had a successful military career himself do to the success of Barbarossa? Obviously the political situation and hence starting point will look considerably different: the COMINTERN will not restrain itself from trying to push a revolution, but will definitely have opposed the Nazis all the way through, perhaps strengthening them in the west. The big question is the starting point for Barbarossa: invading from the east as the Nazis go in from the West is unlikely to be Trotsky's thing given his focus on revolution in the core capitalist countries over success in Russia, and such an act would only hurt the movement. OTOH a dirty trick where the Poles flee into what the Germans think is conquered territory and the Russians suddenly gain a large number of troops might appeal, but is very unlikely to work given the trust required.

Obviously this POD is far back enough that a number of political events will have been butterflied, but we know exactly what Trotsky would have done in the situations because he told us (at length!). The military side is more obscure.

So now the main course: how much better does Russia do this time?

Trotsky has a near zero chance of leading the Soviet Union. Not exactly zero - a series of pretty improbable events could do it, but definitely pretty near zero.

Also I would be careful of what Trotsky said he would have done in Stalin's place. Not because I think he was lying when he wrote his criticisms, but because Trotsky had the luxury of seeing what Stalin did and the effects it had. Before Stalin came to power, Trotsky was committed to idea ideas that would lead to some of Stalin's worst mistakes.

So, that out of the way, let's think about how Trotsky could get in command for WW2 and how he might do things.

1) Trotsky probably doesn't have much power BEFORE WW2. That is, I can imagine a situation where the Soviet Union is much more led by a collective leadership and there isn't one leader that rises to the level of Stalin or Lenin in OTL. Then, as war clouds in Europe gathered, maybe Trotsky gets more power because the years of peace have led to relations between the Old Bolsheviks improving and Trotsky is the one who has most military experience, so his peers trust him more than they did in OTL's 20s and think he's the best guy for the job.

2) Trotsky is pretty old at this point and by having so much experience in the Civil War, he'll likely think he knows what he's doing in this new war. Of course, he won't. Not even the Germans knew how modern war worked when they started it. As such, I doubt Trotsky will be a good leader, at least at first. But, he may learn and provide a useful role as the war continues.

Beyond that, I can't say more without knowing what the red army would look like in this TL.

fasquardon