How would life in the Soviet Union under Leon Trotsky be any different than it was under Stalin?

[SandroPertini98]

Trotsky was not so intervenist as many think: for example he advocated peace during the Soviet-Polish War but was overruled by Lenin. So if Trotsky came to power USSR will be more active in foreign affairs but this will not mean becoming a warmonger expansionist communist empire.
I can see Trotsky supporte Republicans without ordering not-Moscow adherents killed.
I can see him refuse "social fascism" definition of moderate socialist parties, so goodbye Thaelmann and People's Front in Germany, probably no Hitler at all.
And I can see him decide to start exporting revolution not in Europe but in 1938, after the Khalin Gol Crisis, against Japanese Empire.

But the question was about common man's life: with Trotsky, industrialization will not cost tens of millions of people died or condemned to Gulag imprisonment because Paranoid Joe suspects even his shadow.
With Trotsky Ukrainians and other minorities will be not starved to death because Stalin wants demonstrate to himself to be more Russian then Russians although being Georgian.
With Trotsky Jewish people will be not discriminated and often farce jailed as Trotsky was not keen to antisemitic conspiracy theories and has Jewish origins.
With Trotsky, the Heroic Commander of Revolutionary Red Army or something like that, in charge no purge of army officers and party members who don't agree with him.
All this make production more efficient so for the common man this means less hunger, less sudden shootings in the night, less fear, better wages, better working conditions and better life conditions.

 

[David T]

Why do people have this bizarre image that Trotsky would suicidally seek to expand the Soviet Union at the tip of the bayonet or something? That's in fact the Stalinist propaganda that was levelled against Trotsky.

To quote an old post of mine:

Why does everyone assume that Trotsky is more likely to do this than Stalin? Leaving aside the obvious and extreme riskiness of this course, he never advocated it. "Encouraging world revolution" (which both he and Stalin favored *as long as it could be done*) =/= "invade everyone with the Red Army." Trotsky seems to have been at first reluctant to cross the Curzon Line and invade ethnic Poland in 1920. (Some people have questioned this, but Richard Pipes, not exactly an admirer of Trotsky, has defended him on this point: "Several historians have questioned whether Trotsky really opposed the invasion of Poland as he later claimed...But the documents cited against him date from August 1920, when the matter had long since been decided, and Trotsky, having fallen in line like a good Bolshevik, naturally desired a quick and decisive victory." *Russia under the Bolshevik Regime*, pp. 182-3.)

From an interview of his in 1940:

***

QUESTION: Do you, as the former head of the Red Armies, feel it was necessary for the Soviets to move into the Baltic states, Finland and Poland, to better defend themselves against aggression? Do you believe that a socialist state is justified in extending socialism to a neighbor state by force of arms?

ANSWER: It cannot be doubted that control over the military bases on the Baltic coast represents strategical advantages. But this alone cannot determine the question of invasion of neighboring states. The defense of an isolated workers’ state depends much more on the support of the laboring masses all over the world than on two or three supplementary strategical points. This is proven incontrovertibly by the history of foreign intervention in our civil war of 1918-20.

Robespierre said that people do not like missionaries with bayonets. Naturally that does not exclude the right and duty to give military aid from without to peoples rebelling against oppression. For example in 1919 when the Entente strangled the Hungarian revolution, we naturally had the right to help Hungary by military measures. This aid would have been understood and justified by the laboring masses of the world. Unfortunately we were too weak ... At present the Kremlin is much stronger from a military point of view. However, it has lost the confidence of the masses both inside the country and abroad.

If there were soviet democracy in the USSR; if the technological progress were accompanied by the increase of socialist equality; if the bureaucracy were withering away, giving place to the self-government of the masses, Moscow would represent such a tremendous power of attraction, particularly for its nearest neighbors, that the present world catastrophe would inevitably throw the masses of Poland (not only Ukrainians and White Russians but also Poles and Jews) as well as the masses of the Baltic border states on to the road of union with the USSR.

At present this important pre-condition for revolutionary intervention exists, if at all, in a very small degree... https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/ww2.htm

***

Now of course there is boasting here: if *I* were in charge of the Soviet Union, there would be popular revolutions in eastern Europe, and everyone would be begging the USSR to come to their rescue! But I doubt that as actual leader of the USSR, he would be guilty of such self-deception, knowing about the nationalism Polish workers had shown in 1920...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/what-if-the-soviet-union-invaded-eastern-europe-in-the-early-30s.411037/#post-14322206

---

In another post, I stated that it was a fallacy to think "socialism in one country" had anything to do with the comparative likelihood of Stalin and Trotsky following aggressive policies with respect to supporting foreign revolutions:

***
Really, "socialism in one country" has nothing to do with it.

"Socialism in one country" was an attempt to keep up the morale of the Bolsheviks after the failure of Europe to undergo successful Communist revolutions in 1918-23. If did not mean that the USSR would give up on encouraging revolutions abroad, only that as of circa 1925 there seemed little immediate chance that such revolutions would succeed (at least in Europe) and in the meantime the USSR could build socialism even without such revolutions.

I agree with Leszek Kolakowski, *Main Currents of Marxism*, "It is possible that if Trotsky had been in charge of Soviet foreign policy and the Comintern in the 1920s he would have taken more interest than Stalin did in organizing Communist risings abroad, but there is no reason to think his efforts would have had any success. Naturally he used every defeat of Communists in the world to accuse Stalin of neglecting the revolutionary cause. But it is not at all clear what Stalin could have done if he had been actuated by the internationalist zeal which Trotsky accused him of lacking. Russia had no no means of ensuring a German Communist victory in 1923 or a Chinese one in 1926. Trotsky's later charge that the Comintern failed to exploit revolutionary opportunities because of Stalin's doctrine of socialism in one country is completely devoid of substance." https://books.google.com/books?id=qUCxpznbkaoC&pg=PA807

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...want-to-attack-the-west.437519/#post-16558330

 

[yourworstnightmare]

And why is that?

Very few people among the Bolshevik elites actually liked Trotsky very much. They disliked him so much they sided with Stalin over him (whom they didn't like very much but still more than Trotsky). Which is why even if Stalin wasn't around Trotsky would probably not have become the Soviet leader.

 

[David-Shiell]

The most immediate result of a Trotsyist USSR would be the possible cancelling or butterflying of German-Soviet technical developments. The Treaty of Rapallo may still be on the books, but once Trotsky starts getting obnoxious, the Germans back out.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

Trotsky was no less dedicated to state terror against "enemies of the revolution" than Stalin. Also, he opposed the NEP all along, whereas Stalin went along with it. (Stalin turned to all-out collectivization only after becoming General Secretary; it gave him a club to wield against the Right Opposition, which was associated with the NEP.)

The difference would have been in their relations with the Party. Here I think it may be useful to contrast Stalin with Hitler. Hitler had genuine personal charisma and oratorical skills. His Nazi henchmen were completely obedient to him; the Nazi rank and file adored him. He "purged" a few rivals and old enemies in 1933, but otherwise counted on (and got) the loyalty of the Party, the army, and the state. (To be sure, the Gestapo was there to suppress dissent; but the Gestapo was far smaller than the Soviet Cheka.) His personal hold on the nation was so strong that the Schwarz Kapelle dared not try to act against him till he had been discredited by the disaster of Stalingrad.

Stalin had no such personal political strengths. He built up power by exploiting his position as Party administrator for several years to fill the apparatus with followers. He eliminated his rivals in the Politburo by playing them against each other. Then when he had secured supreme power, he launched the Great Purge to liquidate anyone who was not completely loyal or had any independent political credit - i.e. the surviving "Old Bolsheviks".

Trotsky would have been more like Hitler. He had IIRC real oratorical skills and didn't feel the need to buy loyalty with favors. Nor did he view anyone with revolutionary credentials as a personal danger.

Therefore, no Great Purge.

The problem with this idea is, as other people have pointed out in this rhread, Trotsky was very unpopular in the party and so would be unlikely to become the paramount leader like Lenin or Stalin.

 

[History Learner]

Ok, how does the French government especially sell the idea to its populace that they need to sell war materials to Germany, the nation that had just invaded them and they just fought the bloodiest war in history up to that point to ensure they would never again be a threat? On that note how would Germany be able to fight said war? They were in no condition to fight and would lose any sort of war against the Soviets. Like for sure Trotsky wouldn't enforce the level of industrialization that Stalin did, but it's not like Trotsky was foolish or incompetent. He would have pushed for an industrial program, and since he was also not a bloodthirsty tyrant likely wouldn't cause mass famine or kill most of his command staff to ensure his own power. Trotsky was also a very accomplished general and was all for total war efforts. Germany wouldn't have stood a chance. Their pool of manpower, their industrial capacity, and their own people wouldn't support any massive invasion. Hitler barely managed it after a massive build-up based on stolen industrial capacity and slave labor thanks to his invasions of most of the rest of Europe. Without that he simply wouldn't have the capacity for total war on the scale necessary to win against the Soviets.

This idea that Germany would be leading a broad coalition of the West against the Soviets because Trotsky would be just so bellicose and dangerous they'd support all efforts to remove him is just not reflective of the realities of the world at the time.

Just like how their people, manpower and industrial capacity didn't manage to support a massive invasion IOTL? In fact, by 1937-before the wave of annexations-Germany had already rivaled the USSR in industrial capacity:

France, meanwhile has the largest gold reserves in the world at the time; they can definitely afford to issue loans to the Germans, for just one example.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Just like how their people, manpower and industrial capacity didn't manage to support a massive invasion IOTL? In fact, by 1937-before the wave of annexations-Germany had already rivaled the USSR in industrial capacity:

View attachment 534894

France, meanwhile has the largest gold reserves in the world at the time; they can definitely afford to issue loans to the Germans, for just one example.

What's the citation here? Some website you found talking about Japan and the US? Seriously, the website isn't even spellchecked: "In fact, accroding to Kennedy, a breakdown of total global warmaking potential in 1937 looks something like this ". What does, "warmaking potential" even mean in this context? Not suggesting that your figures are completely incorrect, or whatever, but here's Mark Harrison in 'The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison': "The Soviet economy carried many advantages of size into World War II. Its large population, which just exceeded the combined population of the Axis powers, made possible the maintenance of a large army, despite heavy losses. The large area of settlement allowed near self-sufficiency of food, fuel, and mineral ores for industry; as a result, prewar industrialisation could be accomplished despite economic isolation. The large territory also carried strategic advantages when war broke out - space to retreat, regroup, and manoeuvre for defence in depth." I mean, there's more too it than that short paragraph summary, and obviously Harrison goes into depth about both the positives and negatives of the Soviet economy, but these arbitrary numbers that you've provided don't seem all that useful without further analysis.

To quote an old post of mine:

Why does everyone assume that Trotsky is more likely to do this than Stalin? Leaving aside the obvious and extreme riskiness of this course, he never advocated it. "Encouraging world revolution" (which both he and Stalin favored *as long as it could be done*) =/= "invade everyone with the Red Army." Trotsky seems to have been at first reluctant to cross the Curzon Line and invade ethnic Poland in 1920. (Some people have questioned this, but Richard Pipes, not exactly an admirer of Trotsky, has defended him on this point: "Several historians have questioned whether Trotsky really opposed the invasion of Poland as he later claimed...But the documents cited against him date from August 1920, when the matter had long since been decided, and Trotsky, having fallen in line like a good Bolshevik, naturally desired a quick and decisive victory." *Russia under the Bolshevik Regime*, pp. 182-3.)

Trotsky himself in the Platform of the Joint Opposition, 1926: "We must consistently, systematically, and stubbornly wage the struggle for peace. We must postpone war, “buy ourselves off from the war threat”. Everything possible and permissible must be done to this end. At the same time we must get ready for war immediately, not folding our arms for one instant." Essentially the perspective for Trotsky is that the USSR wouldn't dive head first into war but would definitely be prepared to defend itself. He wasn't shy from suggesting that they should be helping indigenous working class movements across the world but he wasn't an idiot either. Yet some people seem to think that his political and military understanding just stops at Clausewitz: "war is politics by other means".

 

[volantredx]

France, meanwhile has the largest gold reserves in the world at the time; they can definitely afford to issue loans to the Germans, for just one example.

Loans the Germans have no chance of paying off and given they were already suffering from hyperinflation and owed France and Britain huge sums of money I don't see such loans being approved.

Also, you've yet to answer why the French people, who were far more left-leaning and sympathetic to communism would support rearming Germany and floating them huge sums of money they have no chance of paying off just so Germany could invade Russia.

 

[History Learner]

What's the citation here? Some website you found talking about Japan and the US? Seriously, the website isn't even spellchecked: "In fact, accroding to Kennedy, a breakdown of total global warmaking potential in 1937 looks something like this ". What does, "warmaking potential" even mean in this context? Not suggesting that your figures are completely incorrect, or whatever, but here's Mark Harrison in 'The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison': "The Soviet economy carried many advantages of size into World War II. Its large population, which just exceeded the combined population of the Axis powers, made possible the maintenance of a large army, despite heavy losses. The large area of settlement allowed near self-sufficiency of food, fuel, and mineral ores for industry; as a result, prewar industrialisation could be accomplished despite economic isolation. The large territory also carried strategic advantages when war broke out - space to retreat, regroup, and manoeuvre for defence in depth." I mean, there's more too it than that short paragraph summary, and obviously Harrison goes into depth about both the positives and negatives of the Soviet economy, but these arbitrary numbers that you've provided don't seem all that useful without further analysis.

The citation is provided within the link, within the first paragraph even:

If you'd like, here's a link to the book directly. As for Mark Harrison, here's some further work by him concerning how the USSR very nearly collapsed in 1942 IOTL. Adam Tooze notes much the same in terms of German industrial superiority over the Soviets.

 

[History Learner]

Loans the Germans have no chance of paying off and given they were already suffering from hyperinflation and owed France and Britain huge sums of money I don't see such loans being approved.

Also, you've yet to answer why the French people, who were far more left-leaning and sympathetic to communism would support rearming Germany and floating them huge sums of money they have no chance of paying off just so Germany could invade Russia.

You keep changing the dimensions of the conversation; you're attempting to imply the situation of the early 1920s is standard but then switch to talking about Hiterlarian Germany; you need to set a consistent standard for this conversation.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What's the citation here?

The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, a good book if pretty severely dated by its final section.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The problem with this idea is, as other people have pointed out in this rhread, Trotsky was very unpopular in the party and so would be unlikely to become the paramount leader like Lenin or Stalin.

Unpopular with his colleagues in the Politburo, certainly. But was he unpopular with the rank and file? Someone wrote of US President Benjamin Harrison that if he addressed a gathering of a thousand men, they would all come away his friends; but if he met each of those men in person, they would all come away his enemies. Trotsky may have been similar.

In any case, the title of the thread assumes Trotsky becomes Supreme Leader. How that happens is important, but it does happen. It may not happen in a way that gives Trotsky confidence in his power that Stalin never had (which wa my thought). However, I doubt that Trotsky ever had the utterly single-minded focus on power that gripped Stalin.

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Unpopular with his colleagues in the Politburo, certainly. But was he unpopular with the rank and file? Someone wrote of US President Benjamin Harrison that if he addressed a gathering of a thousand men, they would all come away his friends; but if he met each of those men in person, they would all come away his enemies. Trotsky may have been similar.

In any case, the title of the thread assumes Trotsky becomes Supreme Leader. How that happens is important, but it does happen. It may not happen in a way that gives Trotsky confidence in his power that Stalin never had (which wa my thought). However, I doubt that Trotsky ever had the utterly single-minded focus on power that gripped Stalin.

I agree here, but how would you propose he came to power so we can get more to the nitty gritty of what Russia would look like ITTL