International Pursuits of the Soviet Union under Trotsky???

So obviously as the title implies we have a USSR under Trotsky instead of Stalin. Lets take a guess and say Trotsky dies between 1955 and 1965 or so naturally. In this time from 1927 onwards how can we expect the USSR to develop? We have all discussed before that because Trotsky wasn't paranoid git like Stalin that purges and such wouldn't happen so we can expect a far superior Red army to OTL in the late 30's early 40's. But what im really interested in is that Trotsky wouldn't of made the USSR isolationist... therefore can we expect the USSR to be more affected by the Great Depression? Can we expect the USSR to get more involved in helping Socialist and Communist movements around the world? Therefore can we butterfly away things like the Sino-Soviet split because of Trotsky's world revolution attempting to make a single Communist federation thus greater ties are made between the two by him and his successors?? Alot to consider and im really keen to hear the opinions of others =]
 
Greater involvement with the outside world leads to two things:

1. The USSR is a more open state, lessening the fear of 'evil commies' as they can be seen not to be openly plotting anything.

2. Communism falls earlier, proably in the 70s or 80s as the people can see how much better life is in the UK/US than the USSR (or they are roughly the same and the USSR isn't really communist anymore.)
 
2. Communism falls earlier, proably in the 70s or 80s as the people can see how much better life is in the UK/US than the USSR (or they are roughly the same and the USSR isn't really communist anymore.)

Great point, however if the USSR is more open could we see the Peoples Republic of China open to the world earlier thus being in a far more stronger position today? Also may the USSR fall differently to OTL, I don't doubt its fall but could portions of it still be strongly pro Communist, or could it flow into the same league as the Chinese brand of Communism with a twisted sort of Capitalism that we see as China today? We could see the Communist world dominated by China far earlier if this was to be the case.
 
Greater involvement with the outside world leads to two things:

1. The USSR is a more open state, lessening the fear of 'evil commies' as they can be seen not to be openly plotting anything.

2. Communism falls earlier, proably in the 70s or 80s as the people can see how much better life is in the UK/US than the USSR (or they are roughly the same and the USSR isn't really communist anymore.)
Why would the soviet union collapse in the 70's, after 40 years of historically un-precedented economic growth? That makes absolutely no sense.
 
For the original post: The Soviet Union historically benefited from the Depression. It was easy to squire away engineers, and industrial machinery was available at low prices.

And I think Trotsky would be a more populist leader though, and might be only a minor annoyance to the west.


1. The Bolsheviks were born out of conditions which necessitated secret and covert planning and actions. While they did reveal secret treaties and pledged for more freedom, total power afterall corrupts. And industrial management is inherently more efficient monopolized, although small businesses are essential for minor needs and developing efficient processes.


2.Uh. Communism didn't fall because other countries had better lifestyles. That'd mean Capitalism should be falling throughout the third-world.

Communism fell because you had to wait several hours in line for sub-standard bread, while all the other stores were literally empty.

And when it got out that Stalin murdered alot of people, people really began to get disillusioned with Communism. The disillusionment first began after Khrushchev's secret speech. Sometimes reality just doesn't make sense, especially when party organs had controlled it.
 
Well, if you want to tackle a question like this, you might want to start in the beginning.

And the beginning has Trotsky advocating things that Stalin later carreid out, for example. Force-collectivization and industrialization, a more professional army etc. In addition, with Trotsky still significant in the USSR, the USSR is embarked on all sorts of interesting adventures: in Persia, in Xinjiang...

Persia alone, as long as Trotsky persists, will give Britain nightmares.

On the other hand, Trotsky was far more likely to go for "United Front" compromises when real danger arose than Stalin was.
 
Given Trotsky's lack of paranoia, it isn't a given that he would last too long at the helm. Top Soviet leadership was an impressive collection of spiders in very small jar. He (Trotsky) might get what Beria got IOTL.

Speaking about Soviet foreign policy under Trotsky, the guy tended to be carried away by his own rhetoric much more than Stalin ever was. So, we can expect more active foreign policy to support every leftist insurgency out there.

However, I agree with RGB that "Broad Anti-Fascist Coalition" is more likely under Trotsky. However, Nazism might spring to life earlier ITTL, as more activist USSR would be seen as greater danger by groups which IOTL sponsored Nazi's rise to power.
 
Given Trotsky's lack of paranoia, it isn't a given that he would last too long at the helm. Top Soviet leadership was an impressive collection of spiders in very small jar. He (Trotsky) might get what Beria got IOTL.

Speaking about Soviet foreign policy under Trotsky, the guy tended to be carried away by his own rhetoric much more than Stalin ever was. So, we can expect more active foreign policy to support every leftist insurgency out there.

However, I agree with RGB that "Broad Anti-Fascist Coalition" is more likely under Trotsky. However, Nazism might spring to life earlier ITTL, as more activist USSR would be seen as greater danger by groups which IOTL sponsored Nazi's rise to power.
This is what I was thinking. Trotsky takes the USSR on a much more active role in spreading the "international" revolution, covertly if not overtly sponsoring red revolutions in any nation he can. This might very well make the USSR even more feared than it was OTL.
 
This is what I was thinking. Trotsky takes the USSR on a much more active role in spreading the "international" revolution, covertly if not overtly sponsoring red revolutions in any nation he can. This might very well make the USSR even more feared than it was OTL.
When did he actually advocate this? Trotksky was one of the first to back away from invading Poland in 1920, and was a strong proponent of Capitalist investment in the USSR.
 
After he lost power.

You people lack a dialectical materialist (that is: marxist) understanding of history, and that's why you are asking silly questions like "what if Trotsky won the power struggle" like if history was created by individuals (I mean, individuals can shape history by doing the right thing at the right moment, like winning a battle, but they don't create social movements). Stalin once said that the party had created him in its image, and he was right. Stalin was only a willing vehicle for the bureaucracy that had seized power in the Soviet Union, and there's no reason to think Trotsky would have behaved otherwise. If he'd won his personal power struggle with Stalin, he would most likely have continued on his earlier track: purges, centralization and militarization, as well as relatively non-confrontative attitudes towards the West.

Similarly, if that had been the case, Stalin might very well have been the one to become the willing vehicle of the Left/Workers opposition that existed in the Soviet Union, and it might have been Stalin that had been writing all those nice books about democratic socialism, and it would've been him you'd be taking by his word, and wondering what would've happened if he had come to power, and it would've been the Stalinists that perished in the Great Purge.
 
Last edited:
When did he actually advocate this? Trotksky was one of the first to back away from invading Poland in 1920, and was a strong proponent of Capitalist investment in the USSR.
I was referring to his rhetoric in the Comintern congresses and the concept of the Untied Front, which seemed to me to indicate a desire to support international Communism, including "openly revolutionary uprisings" in other nations. But I admit my knowledge of Trotsky is limited (and based on wiki :eek:) and I welcome any sources you have that contradict this belief. :)
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Given Trotsky's lack of paranoia, it isn't a given that he would last too long at the helm. Top Soviet leadership was an impressive collection of spiders in very small jar. He (Trotsky) might get what Beria got IOTL.
While it is true that the Soviet leadership under Stalin was mostly comprised of brutal, vindictive, opportunistic, and cannibalistic individuals, this was primarily because the leadership was comprised of Stalin loyalists. Many (like Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Anastas Mikoyan, Lavrenty Beria) only got to power because they were Stalin's cronies from the Caucasus. Kaganovich, Molotov, Voroshilov, and Budyonny were Stalin's cronies from the Civil War.

Trotsky's posse was largely empty of these sorts of personalities; more intellectual, less brutal, less (homicidally) power-hungry. Trotsky probably wouldn't go the way of Beria; he would probably go the way of Khrushchev (interior exile) if ever he were to be thrown out.

After he lost power.

You people lack a dialectical materialist (that is: marxist) understanding of history, and that's why you are asking silly questions like "what if Trotsky won the power struggle" like if history was created by individuals (I mean, individuals can shape history by doing the right thing at the right moment, like winning a battle, but they don't create social movements). Stalin once said that the party had created him in its image, and he was right. Stalin was only a willing vehicle for the bureaucracy that had seized power in the Soviet Union, and there's no reason to think Trotsky would have behaved otherwise. If he'd won his personal power struggle with Stalin, he would most likely have continued on his earlier track: purges, centralization and militarization, as well as relatively non-confrontative attitudes towards the West.
This post seems to reveal a deep unfamiliarity with the person and character of Stalin and the history/power of the Soviet leadership. If one reads history (which in many cases is shaped by individuals) you see that many of the things (especially the crimes) that occured in the USSR from the late '20s to the early '50s would have been impossible without Stalin at the helm.
 

Typo

Banned
I think what he's trying to say is Trotsky probably would have done very similar stuff to Stalin, or be removed from power by someone more willing to do them.
 
I think what he's trying to say is Trotsky probably would have done very similar stuff to Stalin, or be removed from power by someone more willing to do them.
(I asume you're talking about Peter) Yes, we know that already. Hence wolfpaw's comment.
 
It may well be that the USSR would still be around.
Communism may actually start working to, the problem with the USSR was that starting with Stalin it became a failed worker's state, if Trotsky and his successor had been in charge it may well have become a true Communist state, or atleast reformed to be more Socialist than Communist.

Overall Communism may not be seen as bad either.
 

Keenir

Banned
if Trotsky is in charge, Turkey is in deep shite.

(wait...are we assuming he was still imprisoned on Prinkopo Island by Stalin? if not, nevermind)

This is what I was thinking. Trotsky takes the USSR on a much more active role in spreading the "international" revolution, covertly if not overtly sponsoring red revolutions in any nation he can. This might very well make the USSR even more feared than it was OTL.
didn't Trotsky plan on basically using the USSR to export communism? (as opposed to the USSR being the head and brains of communism)
 

Eurofed

Banned
didn't Trotsky plan on basically using the USSR to export communism? (as opposed to the USSR being the head and brains of communism)
Yup. One thing Trotski is going to focus on is to send a lot of support for anti-colonial movements in the Third World. Weapons, money, and "volunteers" for Communist and left-wing nationalist insurgency movements in China, India, Indochina, Indonesia, etc. In addition to making Communist parties in Europe take aggressive, pre-insurrectionary stances whenever a social crisis shows up, direct Soviet intervention in the SCW, etc. This is going to piss off Britain and France a lot.
 
Top