Could a Trotskyist U.S.S.R. have survived Barbarossa?

I suppose I take the side of "WW2 Butterflied" on this issue. I am unsure of how Trotsky would try to steer the Communist Party, but I doubt Trotsky will play so nicely with Germany OTL as Stalin did.

There will be no purge of the Red Army, and in all likelihood Trotsky will not push industrialization quite as hard as Stalin; on the positives Trotsky probably isn't going to rely on excessive terror and secret police as heavily as Stalin, either.

Trotsky presiding over the Soviet Union in 1929 would be huge; I think we'd see some attempt to stage communist revolutions as a result--France and Germany would both be somewhat vulnerable to some kind of move--and while the risks are high and the chance of success low, any kind of hard-left clique emerging and allying with the Soviet Union is going to rewrite the balance of power in Europe.

More likely, Trotsky making this kind of hard move and failing will hurt the political left and see a greater trend towards Fascism...

In any case, by 1938 questions emerge over whether Hitler would even be in charge or if the Soviets have managed to ally with another country in Europe; or if the reverse situation applies for Germany. WW2, and Operation Barbarossa will have been transformed at least slightly through these alterations. One thing I suspect as a given--Trotsky will not be entirely surprised by Germany's attack, and so the Soviets are likely to fight 1941 in a better fashion than OTL. What might sink the Soviets, however, is not developing the Trans-Uralian area, as Stalin did forcibly; if increasing the Soviet Industrial Base happens instead in the Moscow area and further westward the Economics could zag badly against them.

If it somehow came to pass anyway...

I would predict the Soviets to win, but they have less ground to give--but they are lead more competently. Unlike OTL, losing Moscow MIGHT cause this Soviet Union to lose the war--but this probably will not happen when OTL's Major Encirclements are replaced with large-scale withdrawals of troops. Big questions include whether ITTL's Allies will support Lend Lease if Trotsky has done nasty things by 1940/41 and the Economic Strength of ITTL's Soviet Union, as well as its geographical layout.
 
What might sink the Soviets, however, is not developing the Trans-Uralian area, as Stalin did forcibly; if increasing the Soviet Industrial Base happens instead in the Moscow area and further westward the Economics could zag badly against them.

ISTM that devleoping areas away from the border would be fairly common.
 
3) Over time, people become unhappy because they're starving. The younger generation is even less happy over the bureaucracy and is rebellious, as it always is. Trotter's coalition's voted out. It just grows less popular over time, as the younger generations go capitalistic as a result.

But Stalin had amazing levels of support in 1939.

(Yes, he also thousands of people and terrorized the country. This doesn't change the fact that most people thought of him as Uncle Stalin).

You're positing a USSR which has developed as well, so why would they capitalist?
 
If so, then the minor differences between a Trotsky-led ATL Soviet Union and the OTL version pale away. The really meaningful question would be, what if no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Regardless of anything else.

If you look at the first point I raised, I'd say the Molotov -ribbentrop pact pales before the effect of a front populaire Germany.

The point I was making was exactly that. The effects of Trotsky winning against Stalin likely butterflies Barbarossa away, at least in OTL format
 
Tough Question

On one side Trotsky was a lot more democratic and a lot less violent than Stalin. The democratic aspect and increased regard for human life make him less likely to have the massive purges Stalin did if at all. Which means that the army and countries infrastructure are going to be in better shape. They would have had less defectors and collaborators, as well as a populace willing to go to support the government during the time of invasion.

The flip side is that he was more concerned with making the Soviet Union a vanguard for socialism and starting a global revolution. This had two issues concerning Barbarossa. It was Stalin that aggressively pushed for industrialization, many times at the expense of his own people. Second of all this was a new government and Stalin had complete control by the time Nazi's invaded. The government would likely be more fractuous and might have taken longer to come to a grand strategy as groups vied for power. They would also have been less able on a technical level to fight the Nazi's. Would the T-34 have been invented and would it have been produced in sufficent numbers?

Another issue is that would Hitler have invaded? Many believe he pushed operation Barbarosa because of the Red Armies miserable performance during the Winter war. Which showed serious flaws in the Red Army. He may have postponed it until the German army was more prepared logistically, or had dealt with the British.
 
RE:

The basis for a scenario I had, please comment on plausibilty:
Trotsky remains in power, doesn't democratize does focus on building up more heavy industry, but with less blood on the wheels than Stalin does (I'd imagine this makes things better, but your mileage may vary). No military purges, but purges bureaucrats loyal to Stalin. Supports more foreign revolutions, which means a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War. Which leads to a non-aggression pact between France and Germany instead of Moltov-von Ribbentrop so Chamberlain's never discredited, and the Germans and Soviets creep closer toward war. Khalkin-Gol and the invasion of Poland go on as scheduled in our world, which leads Trotsky to declare war on Germany in September of 1939, which leads Japan to stay in the field even after their army gets annihilated. Zhukov commands in the east, Tuchavesky in the west.
 

General Zod

Banned
The basis for a scenario I had, please comment on plausibilty:
Trotsky remains in power, doesn't democratize does focus on building up more heavy industry, but with less blood on the wheels than Stalin does (I'd imagine this makes things better, but your mileage may vary). No military purges, but purges bureaucrats loyal to Stalin. Supports more foreign revolutions, which means a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War. Which leads to a non-aggression pact between France and Germany instead of Moltov-von Ribbentrop so Chamberlain's never discredited, and the Germans and Soviets creep closer toward war. Khalkin-Gol and the invasion of Poland go on as scheduled in our world, which leads Trotsky to declare war on Germany in September of 1939, which leads Japan to stay in the field even after their army gets annihilated. Zhukov commands in the east, Tuchavesky in the west.

With Soviets having been the mastermind of worlwide Communist subversion for a decade, and crypto-Commie Spain, and the Red Army on the offensive in both Eastern Europe and Manchuria, Britain likely allies with Germany and declares war on the Soviet Union at the first decent casus belli.
 
I think if FDR was willing to work with Joe Stalin, then he would have fallen overhimself to work with a much more just Trotsky. There were many Americans who felt sympathy for the Spanish Republican/Communist side of the Civil War and if Trotsky is a good friend (not purely realpolitik, like Stalin), then he will find alot of potential Allies in America.

I have read that FDR also had a strong distaste for the colonial empires of Great Britain and France. This is shared by Trotsky, who views it again more as an idealist rather than as a power grab. Also American support of the KMT in china might also go along with Trotsky's efforts there. Since it was the policy of the Commintern to support the KMT until Stalin took power.

I think Trotsky could probably rely on some support from the US.
 
I think if FDR was willing to work with Joe Stalin, then he would have fallen overhimself to work with a much more just Trotsky. There were many Americans who felt sympathy for the Spanish Republican/Communist side of the Civil War and if Trotsky is a good friend (not purely realpolitik, like Stalin), then he will find alot of potential Allies in America.

I have read that FDR also had a strong distaste for the colonial empires of Great Britain and France. This is shared by Trotsky, who views it again more as an idealist rather than as a power grab. Also American support of the KMT in china might also go along with Trotsky's efforts there. Since it was the policy of the Commintern to support the KMT until Stalin took power.

I think Trotsky could probably rely on some support from the US.
Not Least because, Depending on Exactly How The Polish Situation Works out, he May Already have Relatives Living in The United States ...

Following The Russo-Polish War, Many of Trotsky's Cousins, My Own Ancestors Included, Went into Exile through American Ports, i.e. New York City and New Orleans ...

What do you Guys Think; Will these Back-Channels be of ANY Use, Or will The Recent Immigrants Forget about their Good Ol' Cousin Lev?

:D
 
I think if FDR was willing to work with Joe Stalin, then he would have fallen overhimself to work with a much more just Trotsky. There were many Americans who felt sympathy for the Spanish Republican/Communist side of the Civil War and if Trotsky is a good friend (not purely realpolitik, like Stalin), then he will find alot of potential Allies in America.

I think Trotsky could probably rely on some support from the US.

By the 1920s Trotsky was fairly Anti-American.

In the 1920s he predicted that America would become the strongest of the Capitalist countries, and that because of this the US would be compelled to fight against the revolutionary upheavals in SE Asia, South and Central America and teh Middle East, so he warned Stalin to go prepare for a war against America taking place somewhere in the 1940s. Of course, since by 1925 upwards the Trotskyist movement had declined, this was not heeded by Stalin.

Indeed, the war against America didn't take place, but the part of America becoming the strongest of the Capitalist countries and the part about opposing revolution came true.

Of course, this is only Trotsky's initial reaction, and this is subject to change (especially if the US becomes the 'International Market where Soviet Products will dominate' like Trotsky dreams of), but this is unlikely, like one of the posters said, why would anybody invest on a market that ultimately will fund revolutionary movements?

The Late 1930s America was admiring the USSR because of its apparent durability in the face of Economic Depression, Industrialized Economy that had been achieved in such a short time (Even the New York Times reporter, Walter Duranty denied the purges and mass deportatations) and Stalin's character (courtesy of H.G. Wells). Under Trotsky, the prevailing belief in this Board is that the Soviet Economy will be much less industrialized 'cos Trotsky's softer. And if the USSR does find a market in the US, it will be affected by the depression, and of course, Trotsky is not Stalin. Add this to the fact that he will be actively funding revolutionary movements, and you've got no reason to speculate that the US will love Trotsky the way it loved Stalin.
 
Another thought along those lines. Stalin was a butcher and raised other's paranoia with good reason. With Trotsky and a more even keel, how much effect would this have on Germany wanting to invade (of course, Hitler despised communism, period)?

And when Germany attacked in June 1941 a lot of people wanted to leave Stalin on his own. Would Trotsky have more goodwill? Also, will the 1939 Russo-Finnish Winter War take place? Same with the annexing of the Baltic States.

Could war break out with Germany over the Baltic states, then? Trotsky probably wouldn't try to annex them until he thought they were threatened by the Nazis. Also, would the standard of living be better than OTL after WWII? I would think so.

Would the era of stagnation also occur?
 
Not Least because, Depending on Exactly How The Polish Situation Works out, he May Already have Relatives Living in The United States ...

Following The Russo-Polish War, Many of Trotsky's Cousins, My Own Ancestors Included, Went into Exile through American Ports, i.e. New York City and New Orleans ...

What do you Guys Think; Will these Back-Channels be of ANY Use, Or will The Recent Immigrants Forget about their Good Ol' Cousin Lev?

I am bit confused by your capitalisation, but you make a very interesting point. If trotsky is decidedly well represented by the US media then I think Trotsky's family and fellow eastern europeans might be a great help to Trotsky. Imagine if instead of German Bunds meeting in maddison square garden, we would have Eastern Europeans gathering at maddison square gardens for large "Friends of Russia Congresses."

The Late 1930s America was admiring the USSR because of its apparent durability in the face of Economic Depression, Industrialized Economy that had been achieved in such a short time (Even the New York Times reporter, Walter Duranty denied the purges and mass deportatations) and Stalin's character (courtesy of H.G. Wells). Under Trotsky, the prevailing belief in this Board is that the Soviet Economy will be much less industrialized 'cos Trotsky's softer. And if the USSR does find a market in the US, it will be affected by the depression, and of course, Trotsky is not Stalin. Add this to the fact that he will be actively funding revolutionary movements, and you've got no reason to speculate that the US will love Trotsky the way it loved Stalin.

I would agree that Trosky would not be so absolutely obssessed with industrialisation like Stalin was. Stalin was thinking of giving a tractor to every farmer before those farmers would have the seed they might need. Trotsky on the other hand might be more willing to produce smaller consumer goods and the like. Part of the industrialisation of Russia was tied with foreign investment and trotsky would probably be much more open to it. Also there would likely be a less agravated Ukrainian Famine, since Trotsky would not have Stalinists in power like Lazar.
 
Top