WI Trotsky wins the power struggle against Stalin

Towelie

Banned
Basically, the Soviet Union becomes like a leftist version of Prussia: an army with a state, not the other way around, and tries to invade people.
 
From my understanding, Trotsky was a dick, but he wasn't a deranged, paranoid lunatic like Stalin. WWII probably goes about the same, lots of people die, and the West is still very wary of the USSR, but with enough smart people as successors, anything is possible, from Deng-style reforms to full-on reforms and conciliation with the West, possibly against China.
 

Towelie

Banned
From my understanding, Trotsky was a dick, but he wasn't a deranged, paranoid lunatic like Stalin. WWII probably goes about the same, lots of people die, and the West is still very wary of the USSR, but with enough smart people as successors, anything is possible, from Deng-style reforms to full-on reforms and conciliation with the West, possibly against China.
Well, he wouldn't have tried to purge the army and left it decapitated like Stalin did, but he also probably would not have forcefully industrialized the Soviet Union in a way that would have allowed it to fight a modern war in the way that Stalin did. Its really hard to say what the Red Army would have looked like in 1941 under Trotsky. My guess is that it would have been better led, but probably with a disturbingly high amount of horse cavalry units and armored trains and other civil war relics. The totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia allowed for the raising of manpower and use of resources that powered the war effort. Trotsky would likely be just as totalitarian, but there would be more risks of fractures forming in the war effort because of his value that he placed on trade unions.
 
Well, he wouldn't have tried to purge the army and left it decapitated like Stalin did, but he also probably would not have forcefully industrialized the Soviet Union in a way that would have allowed it to fight a modern war in the way that Stalin did. Its really hard to say what the Red Army would have looked like in 1941 under Trotsky. My guess is that it would have been better led, but probably with a disturbingly high amount of horse cavalry units and armored trains and other civil war relics. The totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia allowed for the raising of manpower and use of resources that powered the war effort. Trotsky would likely be just as totalitarian, but there would be more risks of fractures forming in the war effort because of his value that he placed on trade unions.

Sounds to me like the USSR still holds together enough to wear down the Nazis in winter, though the win comes more from brainpower and Hitler's insanity. Meanwhile, the USSR makes fewer gains and maybe has to choose between Europe and Asia, all the while he struggles to hold onto power after the war and may end up deposed once people don't have the Nazis to worry about anymore.
 
I remember reading here that Trotsky wasn't ever in any position to actually win the power-struggle, Bukharin was.
 
I don't think a Trotsky-ruled USSR is very likely at any time after Stalin was named as General Secretary (Zinoviev-Kamenev prevailing over Stalin in 1923 or Bukharin prevailing in 1928 are actually more plausible alternatives to Stalin IMO) but if somehow it happens, here is an interesting possibility: the USSR takes the lead in nuclear physics and develops the first a-bomb? Consider what Trotsky said in 1926:

"The phenomena of radio-activity are leading us to the problem of releasing intra-atomic energy. The atom contains within itself a mighty hidden energy, and the greatest task of physics consists in pumping out this energy, pulling out the cork so that this hidden energy may burst forth in a fountain. Then the possibility will be opened up of replacing coal and oil by atomic energy, which will also become the basic motive power. This is not at all a hopeless task. And what prospects it opens before us!" https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1926/03/science.htm
 
Why are people saying Trotsky would not have industrialised the Soviet Union? That was one of his main goals; he decried the bungling, wasteful, inefficient and incompetent manner that Stalin carrried it out, that doesn't mean he wouldn't pursue industrialisation himself. Also, Trotsky was in favour of trade linkages and technical/scientific exchanges with the advanced Western capitalist countries, not Stalinist autarky, so Soviet industrialisation under Trotskyism has the potential to go much better.

The question of a Trotskyist USSR is asked on a regular basis on this forum, many, many times, and it is an extremely fascinating question because it results in a radically different Soviet Union, world communist/socialist movement - and indeed the entire interwar period could be changed - from the Stalinism of IOTL.

There are some key members of this forum who have a wealth of knowledge on this topic, and it's always great to read their input. I hope one day someone more talented and knowledgable than myself writes a timeline on a Trotskyist Soviet Union because it would be fun and get a ton of interest from readers.
 
Top