The popular thread of reason on this forum is that "more free market = stronger USSR", but as far as I understand it the academic consensus (from the more recent social histories) is that the NEP was alienating the primary constituency of the Bolsheviks (the urban workers) and was creating contradictions within the Soviet economy that were heightening to a pitch (think the issue with the NEPmen). Bukharin's advocacy for a continuation of the program would have imposed his own vision on the NEP that probably would've contributed to a disintegration in the fledgling Soviet administrative apparatus and weakened its ability to combat the Germans when they came roaring over the border in '41. I'm not particularly well read on this in particular, so I would have to do some more reading for a more in depth answer but that's what Carr was essentially claiming..
WI: Trotsky leads the USSR instead of Stalin?
The popular thread of reason on this forum is that "more free market = stronger USSR", but as far as I understand it the academic consensus (from the more recent social histories) is that the NEP was alienating the primary constituency of the Bolsheviks (the urban workers) and was creating contradictions within the Soviet economy that were heightening to a pitch (think the issue with the NEPmen). Bukharin's advocacy for a continuation of the program would have imposed his own vision on the NEP that probably would've contributed to a disintegration in the fledgling Soviet administrative apparatus and weakened its ability to combat the Germans when they came roaring over the border in '41. I'm not particularly well read on this in particular, so I would have to do some more reading for a more in depth answer but that's what Carr was essentially claiming..
If the USSR invades Germany? That means Poland would have to be USSR aligned beforehand. The Allies are pretty much forced to come in the defense of Germany if it is doing too badly, say if the USSR takes Berlin in the first months of the war, then basically the same as the other scenario. They set up a friendly government in Weimar or Frankfurt (etc.) and they attempt to push the USSR out of Germany proper, they might try to push further but I imagine it'd stalamate pretty quickly.
Any scenario where the USSR is the agressor would have to have a Germany weak enough as to make the Soviet leadership it's a good idea to outright invade them.
Which means.....German Civil War still needs to be raging to have the USSR pull that off. Now, how do you get a pro-Soviet Poland?
Maybe an invasion of Poland a year-and-a-half early? That could lead to the Spartacists getting their way and a few Entente trousers coloured a nice brown.
Nah, Trotsky was already leading the Red Army by then. If he was responsible for bringing the revolution from the borders of Poland to the frontiers of France he'd be much more likely to get Stalin kicked to the curb.
So, why not just roll over Poland first and THEN beat up the Nazis on behalf of the SPD-KPD United Front?
Probably not. The entente didn't really want another war- the French would just... not have an army, as they were still mildly peeved over 1917 and Aisne. Most likely WW2 breaks out in the 1930s, or never at all (neither side willing to risk it, with Trotsky trying to industrialise and the Entente knowing that any major loss is just asking for the Soviets to incite a revolt at home)
World War II: Red Boogaloo. This time it's Hitler being the quote "token evil teammate" unquote of the allies.
At least, that sounds like the most interesting scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if Trotsky gets usurped
At least, that sounds like the most interesting scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if Trotsky gets usurped
Trotsky was the head of the army, and I'm pretty sure they quite liked him there. Tad hard to coup a guy who's considered the legitimate leader if the army's on his side.
when did Vladimir Lenin die January 21, 1924 Trotsky is not taking power until that man is dead they still lose the war in Poland
Whatever scenarios there may be for Trotsky coming to power, using Lenin's "Testament' won't do it, As I note at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/leon-trotsky-succeeds-lennin.480494/#post-19963620 the Testament contains criticisms not just of Stalin but of all the leading Bolsheviks (except Lenin himself of course) including Trotsky.
Indeed, if Stalin were ousted as General Secretary n 1923, the most likely beneficiaries would be Zinoviev and Kamenev, not Trotsky. They may not have been particularly popular with the other leading Bolsheviks but Trotsky was less so. And after all Zinoviev did head the Leningrad party organization and Kamenev the Moscow one--the two most important party organizations in the country.
It's true they had their opposition to the October insurrection to live down, but Trotsky had years of pre-1917 anti-Bolshevism, as well as his failed "no war, no peace" policy at Brest-Litovsk in 1918, his position opposed by Lenin in the "trade union controversy" etc. He was moreover suspected of "Bonapartist" tendencies.
Because they were fanatical Communists at the time , particularly Trotsky with his "permanent revolution"? One of the big ideals of Marx was to form a world wide Communist state. Why wouldn't Trotsky try to put it into practice?
That's far from the only way to pull it off. Trotsky could easily fund insurgencies instead of directly steamrolling Europe.