The Great Patriotic War... now with Trotsky.

Why does everyone assume Trotsky was some wild eyed revolutionary who would have done crazy things?

I mean look at his attitude during the Polish-Soviet War, when he opposed the invasion of Poland.

This is not the attitude of someone who conspires to set Europe ablaze...
 

Cook

Banned
Alas, the venerable Wolfpaw has demonstrated that Trotsky taking power in the USSR is simply not plausible -- relevant thread here...

You would have to prevent Stalin from ever getting into the position of General Secretary. Perhaps have Lenin undergo surgery to remove the bullet from his neck a couple of months earlier and stroke out while undergoing the surgery, that wouldn’t even have been unexpected for a man with his health problems.

The thread doesn’t ask for a replacement of Stalin with Trotsky, just how would he handle it if he’d been on the scene; presumably still as head of the Red Army.
 
You would have to prevent Stalin from ever getting into the position of General Secretary. Perhaps have Lenin undergo surgery to remove the bullet from his neck a couple of months earlier and stroke out while undergoing the surgery, that wouldn’t even have been unexpected for a man with his health problems.

Keeping Stalin from taking power is one thing; making Trotsky his ATL equivalent is another...
 
The OTL Great Patriotic War was the result of decisions like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Purges that Trotsky is unlikely to take, the kind of decisions that alter broader European politics in the pre-WWII era. His rise prevents the OTL scenario.

Perhaps. From a strictly counter-factual (or whatever the academic term is) point, European history of the 20th Century would be drastically altered.

But, my musings were on how Trotsky would have handled it, and how the USSR would have looked by 1941.
 
Keeping Stalin from taking power is one thing; making Trotsky his ATL equivalent is another...

I recall a story that Stalin wanted to be a priest in his youth (or was that Hitler?); had he managed this, maybe he would never be a Revolutionary.

From what little I understand about the situation was that Stalin was a thug while Trotsky was an intellectual. I don't think he'd be much like the man of steel to begin with. How popular was he among the Party's rank and file?
 
I recall a story that Stalin wanted to be a priest in his youth (or was that Hitler?); had he managed this, maybe he would never be a Revolutionary.

From what little I understand about the situation was that Stalin was a thug while Trotsky was an intellectual. I don't think he'd be much like the man of steel to begin with. How popular was he among the Party's rank and file?

He was actually a trainee in a georgian monastery, so....
Stalin had actually a sort of small intelectual side as well... But a functionary. A salaryman. The papers person type.
 
From what little I understand about the situation was that Stalin was a thug while Trotsky was an intellectual. I don't think he'd be much like the man of steel to begin with. How popular was he among the Party's rank and file?

Well, he was pretty despised by the top communists -- those that weren't his bitter enemies certainly were less than enthralled with him. "Douche" was, FWIG, a fitting term...
 
Why does everyone assume Trotsky was some wild eyed revolutionary who would have done crazy things?

I mean look at his attitude during the Polish-Soviet War, when he opposed the invasion of Poland.

This is not the attitude of someone who conspires to set Europe ablaze...

Because he both was one and was a political incompetent. His behavior in 1917 pretty clearly illustrates he'd be a worse politician than Stalin was, and Stalin had plenty of disasters to his credit.

Perhaps. From a strictly counter-factual (or whatever the academic term is) point, European history of the 20th Century would be drastically altered.

But, my musings were on how Trotsky would have handled it, and how the USSR would have looked by 1941.

What I'm getting at is that such a war might not come at all in 1941 as Stalin's actions that led to those things won't replicate themselves with Trotsky in charge. If anything Hitler has an easier means to spin his racist poison about "Judaeo-Bolshevism." :eek::eek:
 
I recall a story that Stalin wanted to be a priest in his youth (or was that Hitler?); had he managed this, maybe he would never be a Revolutionary.

From what little I understand about the situation was that Stalin was a thug while Trotsky was an intellectual. I don't think he'd be much like the man of steel to begin with. How popular was he among the Party's rank and file?

From what little I understand Stalin was one of the most senior Bolsheviks, Trotsky jumped from Menshie to Bolshie at the last minute and alienated as many people as Stalin did.
 
Trying to fall asleep, I had a strange thought (my mind wanders quite a bit). How would have Trotsky handled WWII?

-Would the Soviet Union have industrialized as fast without Stalin's brutal force?
-What would the Soviet Union even look like in 1940?
-Would the Gulag system be as expansive without Stalin?
-Would Trotsky have bought into the 1939 Non-Agro Pact?
-Would he have been blind to the obvious attack in 1941?
-What about after the war, assuming the Soviets won. Would their have been a communist wave over Eastern Europe?

Badly.
He would have been both far more brutal and far less succesful that old good Josif.
The war could end with Germany loosing, but USSR would NOT win.
And don't forget who was the one signing the Brest Litovsk treaty.
 
A Johnny-come-lately then?

Yes, and his Jewish ancestry gave the other Bolsheviks an easy prejudice against him. His leadership of the Red Army tends to be exaggerated, and it's forgotten that Stalin was just as fond of the generals *he* propped up. It's possible for Tuchachevsky to become Trotsky's Zhukov. It's also possible a Trotskyist USSR turns into a Communist version of a military dictatorship.
 
Top