WI Trotsky rules the soviet union

this WI is more a question of how a hipotetical united revolutionary front, armed and organised by moscow, alongside the ideas of the comintern, and the ideas of the internationala, could afect the history of europe, given the state it was in in 1924/5 till say... 1940?

what i mean is looking at the spanish civill war, the situation in eastern europe, the fighting in italy during the rise of fashism, and especially the state of things in germany during the 20is, how would things go if the soviets actively suported the european comunist parties with weapons and funds, as well as sending experienced agents to organise things or ewen set up training camps for forein revolutionaries and terrorists
how could the spanish civil war go if there was more comperhensive soviet help
and how would history be affected by a civil war in italy?
also what of the french and british reaction?
 
Last edited:
This is certainly interesting,and for some reason it doesn't seem to have been done before.

Fascism may well get more support in Western Europe, due to the increased 'Red Scare' element which will be present in 1920s and 30s European society,especially among the upper classes and the establishment generally.

If not fascism, then some countries may well be more restrictive - expect things like universal (male) suffrage to come about a lot later, due to establishment fears of allowing communists to take over, through 'democratic' (;)) socialist parties.
On the other hand, women may get the vote earlier - in OTL, it was felt (at least in Britain) that women were more inclined to vote Conservative.
 
First look at stalin. Didnt believe in anything bar himself. The opportunist who wormed his way to the top.

In the 20's allied himself with Lenin. When Vladimir died, allies himself with Bukharin against Zinoviev and Trotsky. Then with them to the outskirts, wheeled against the "right" and took power.

All this was possible due to the us and them mentality of the civil war and international isolation, the bureaucratic system, the overwheening moral arguments of their twist on Marxism which did not allow alternativs. Pity the poor anarchists.But most of all no sense of any form of democracy, accountability or debate.

A trotsky soviet union would have been pretty similar to the stalin soviet union. The 5 year plans, the purges, the bureaucratic elite. However Trotsky was, unlike Stalin convinced communist and I wouldnt have been surprised if the USSR hadnt endured its own "cultural revolution"

However a big difference would have been that I think Trotsky would have been more active in attempting to spread revolution. Got himself involved in national liberation and anti colonial movements in the so called third world. Alot earlier than what actually happened after 1945. Attempted to be the firend of the international oppressed. A 20th c France. B ut like France (hello Toubon Laws) pretty much throws scorn on anything internally that isnt their narrow version of French "republican" eg Bretons, Beurs on so on. A multi racial society with a mono racial ideology.

Also with a man of Jewish exatraction on the throne, the right would have become more overtly anti semitic. If that is possible!!!

Would the Zionst movement accepted Trotsky's guns before 1935?
 
Oh my God! Russia would not outlive that crosses.....it is the war between Soviet Union and other countries...."working armies"...all the country is a big concetration camp......
 
Last edited:
Allow me to voice some objections to Trotsky as the Red Napoleon.

1) Trotsky, unlike others in the Sovietleadership, was against the invasion of Poland in 1921.

2) Trotsky opposed a policy of autarky, and favored gaining access to western technology and investment to jumpstart the Soviet Union.

This suggests Trotsky would have been more cautious than people portray him...
 
Allow me to voice some objections to Trotsky as the Red Napoleon.

1) Trotsky, unlike others in the Sovietleadership, was against the invasion of Poland in 1921.

2) Trotsky opposed a policy of autarky, and favored gaining access to western technology and investment to jumpstart the Soviet Union.

This suggests Trotsky would have been more cautious than people portray him...
he wasnt good economist
 
i already posted a more elaborate thread about this question but it yust didnt get any atention so i shortened it
i think its on page 5 or 4 by now

aniway IMO the interesting thing to see would be how the political conflicts in germany, italy and spain would of worked out

italy was on the brink of ciwil war in the 1920is, the olnly thing that stopped it was the disfunktional united front that could not organise itself even when it had popular support and was even almoust as well armed as the fashists

also imagine the german comunists and anarchists of the 1920is actually got organised and did the same as the nazis, or at least anny form of organised oposition to the nazis, who werent that powerfull before 1933

not to mention the damage staljinism did to left parties worldwide, and the constant lack of soviet support to the republicans in spain

or ewen, and this might sound a bit asb but wtf it worked in cuba, more engagement in south america and africa during the 70is

as for trotsky being yewish, i dont think it would mean that much, comunism was already denounced by the reaction as "the yewish conspiracy" and in the sssr most yews not actively in the party were already considered class enemies
 

bard32

Banned
Trotsky was Lenin's choice over Stalin. The Politburo just put Lenin's Last Will
and Testament aside. Had that not happened, then Stalin, and not Trotsky,
(real name Lev Davidovich Bronstein,) would have had the hatchet in his head,
which, unfortunately, it wasn't.
 
Trotsky was a realist as much as a revolutionary. His idea of internationalism was not of some monolithic bloc but of different versions of socialism working together. Just like the Second International in OTL his idea was that there would be no central authority over any member group.

His domestic policies were pretty clear and I do not know why people make guesses about them. His pragmaticism extended to creating the Red Army despite his ideological aversion to military rank and initially advocating a people’s militia type of organization. Once he was faced with the reality of having to face professional generals leading trained troops, he and Lenin rehabilitated tsarist generals and instituted a professional military. His energy, organizational ability and natural leadership qualities quickly transformed the Red Army into the best fighting force in the civil war.

While many Party members were cautious and even suspicious of Lenin’s New Economic Policy, he put aside his own misgivings and supported it to such a degree that he advocated extending it. After Lenin’s death he wanted the program to be rolled out into every area of the Soviet economy. He advocated fostering closer relations with foreign capitalists to get money and technology and he even began to extend the idea that small capitalist enterprises were acceptable to middle sized ones in heavy industry. Party oversight and policy would ensure that large enterprises would not develop unless they were under State control.

It is interesting to speculate what his attitude to the US would be. Trotsky expressed admiration for the United States on more than one occasion and perhaps his pragmaticism may have extended to disavowing the International Revolution to get some of that capital and investment. Would US recognition of the USSR occur even earlier under his leadership?
 
Bump! This stuff is fascinating... the only version of Trotsky I ever heard about was the "world revolutionary" figure - I had no idea he was that grounded in reality... :eek:
 
Top