If Trotsky had succeeded in becoming the USSR's leader after Lenin, do you think he'd have been better than Stalin? Would Trotsky have done any purges?

I think personally that Trotsky may have been a bit better than Stalin but in the end would've ended up being a dictator just as much.

Its so hard to tell. Would Trotsky have signed the nonaggression pact? Unlikely. would have have industrialsed the country so quickly? again, unlikely, he probably would have concentrated more on spreading the revolution. So while he may well have been a relatively kinder dictator to live under, its harder to see Trotskys Red Army over the Reichstag than it is Stalins. If the USSR had been knocked out of WW2, the entire history of Earth since then would be much altered. but who knows how he would have changed in office? He probably would have conducted purges of some sort (not all Stakins purges were paraniod based, there is some evidence Senior army officers may have been planning a coup). He may well have kept the NEP going, whihc almost certaintly would have led to increased consumer good, but as someone else on the fiorum once said, the Soviet Union was a lot better off with gigtantic Tank factories in 1942 than it would have been with everyone owning a car or fridge.

Trotsky was a firm proponent of a World Revolution so I agree I don't see him signing the pact. Trotsky was more of an idealist than Stalin, really. If Trotsky had had his way I doubt Brest-Litovsk would've happened either.

Trotsky was a firm proponent of a World Revolution so I agree I don't see him signing the pact. Trotsky was more of an idealist than Stalin, really. If Trotsky had had his way I doubt Brest-Litovsk would've happened either.

I doubt any bolsheveik leader wouldnt have signed that, the main reason for the support of them amongst the public was the fact that they promised ot end the war.

If Trotsky had succeeded in becoming the USSR's leader after Lenin, do you think he'd have been better than Stalin? Would Trotsky have done any purges?

I think personally that Trotsky may have been a bit better than Stalin but in the end would've ended up being a dictator just as much.

Trotsky have proven himself pretty ruthless when it comes to "enemies of the people" in the Russian Civil War, so yes he would crack down very savagely on any opposition, but maybe not with the same intensity or brutality or paranoia as Stalin did. He would've probably relied less on secret police but more on the Red Army, and would be more reluctant to kill off his officers wholesale as Stalin did (so the country would be better prepared for invasions). He also may not purge his party as Stalin did, although any overly-popular high ranking members would be killed.

With the emphasis on world revolution, Trotsky may not have industrialised the USSR as quickly as Stalin did. Then again, he may have chose to continue Lenin's policy of NEP (limited capitalism) and that would probably improve quality of life (a good question is, if NEP works, would Trotsky proceed with collectivisation and banning private property? Would he develop a milder form of communism? Still he was an idealist first, a realist second, so it's likely he would have followed through with collectivisation anyway). The Red Army would be given a lot of power under Trotsky, and Soviet intervention overseas would increase, especially in Asia and maybe Eastern Europe. This would make the western imperialists very uneasy. A West-Soviet Cold War could start in the 1920s instead of the 1940s. Nazi Germany and Japan might be considered by the West wary of Trotsky's world revolution as an ally against the USSR. The Second World War might see England, Germany, France and Japan on one side fighting the USSR and China on the other.

It's a bit hard to see Trotsky as a national leader because in his lifetime he was a revolutionary. And good revolutionaries often make bad national leaders (see Mao Zedong, political, economic and social chaos in the reign of). Plus, much of his works was written after his fall from power when he was trying to rally communists under him and portray himself as an alternative to Stalin.

Stalin. With a 'stache like his, who needs Trotsky anyway? Lenin and Trotsky were the ones dumb enough to appease Stalin and allow him to attain the position he did (whenever he didn't need Trotsky anymore) to begin with. In my opinion, Trotsky deserved the icepick to the head.

Ironically this might also stop Hitler becoming "Führer"! With a more offensive Soviet Union Germany would not be able to work with in the time until 1933. So the secret test areas for the Reichswehr would be elsewhere. OTOH the terrified western powers may have accepted Germany as equal again and without Versailles there was the main cause for Hitler anhiliated.
Trotzky was building up the Red Army and I doubt he would not make industrialisation attemps. The Holodomor holocaust would not have happen, but he wasn't innocent at all.
WW2 would have happen, but with other coalitions. The Soviets and China against the rest?

Adler

taillesskangaru's point about the personality differences between Trotsky and Stalin can be taken further than he posits.

To me, Stalin's most defining characteristic was his paranoia. He played "cold war" style games with everyone around him, his entire life. Naturally, when he took power, he more-or-less turned the Soviet State into a giant mirror of his particular paranoid mindset. This, in turn, flowed into the Comintern and communist parties worldwide.

What would communism have looked like in the 30s and 40s and beyond with the equivalent of the 4th International at the helm?

They would have built the windmill and not made deals with humans.

I think the world would be a better place if Stalin hadn't taken power. The implications of Trotsky as leader of the USSR are of interest to me, but one can only imagine.

Trotsky was a pansy. Hitler was more strong willed than he was. There's no way the Soviet Union could've made it past world war 2.

Trotsky was a pansy. Hitler was more strong willed than he was. There's no way the Soviet Union could've made it past world war 2.

Thats why he was head of the Red Army and was the one who wanted to spread revolution throughout the world, instead of amassing more power for himself. Truly, a coward :rolleyes:

The death toll might be significantly higher if Trotsky became General Secretary of the CPSU.

"...the Party is always right..."

The death toll might be significantly higher if Trotsky became General Secretary of the CPSU.

"...the Party is always right..."

In what way? (The war, purges, etc?)

The death toll might be significantly higher if Trotsky became General Secretary of the CPSU.

"...the Party is always right..."
Strictly speaking, the Party consisted of every citizen of the USSR, so essentially Trotsky is asserting his devotion to democracy.
And even if that's not true, it's slightly better than "Stalin is always right".

Some of Stalin's worst ideas were copied from Trotsky. Like the forced collectivization of farms, and confiscating the production of peasants to pay for industrialization. When Trotsky first proposed them Stalin expressed his opposition, but after he came to power he was quick to promote said ideas as his own and put them in practice.

It is often stated that Trotsky was an idealist while Stalin was cold and pragmatic... truth is Trotsky could be just as pragmatic, as his role ahead of the Red Army proves. The dispute between Stalin and Trotsky was not one of ideologies, as trotskyists like to claim, but rather one for power.

My guess is that things would have gone very similarly, with the possible exception of WW2, since I doubt Trotsky would believe in Hitler's good intentions in the same stupid way that Stalin did.

My guess is that things would have gone very similarly, with the possible exception of WW2, since I doubt Trotsky would believe in Hitler's good intentions in the same stupid way that Stalin did.
Amazing, isn't it? Hitler managed to convince his neighbours to both sides that they had more to fear from the guy on the other side than they did from him and his militaristic regime with it's arms build up an explicitly expansionist rhetoric. And to make it worse, they generally kept on believing right that up until the point the SS turned up on their doorstep.
Either the Nazis were very smart, or everyone else was very stupid. Can't help but feel it's a little of both.

Amazing, isn't it? Hitler managed to convince his neighbours to both sides that they had more to fear from the guy on the other side than they did from him and his militaristic regime with it's arms build up an explicitly expansionist rhetoric. And to make it worse, they generally kept on believing right that up until the point the SS turned up on their doorstep.
Either the Nazis were very smart, or everyone else was very stupid. Can't help but feel it's a little of both.

Indeed, it goes to show that people sometimes want to believe in something so badly that they put it ahead of all facts. This is true for Stalin as it is for Chamberlain.

Even though many people fell for Hitler's false promisses, I still blame them entirely for doing so. How could any decend ruler trust Hitler after he disrespected every treaty he signed, always claiming that it would be the last time? How could anyone not expect him to invade Poland after what happened in Rhineland, Czechslovakia and Austria? How could Stalin not believe in the countless warnings from the UK that a german attack was iminent, even though he knew that millions of german troops were moving east? Stalin's willing blindness allowed a good part of the soviet Air Force to be destroyed on the ground, it's almost insanely stupid.

The problem is: Before Hitler's invasion of Chechoslovakia Europe had a bad conscience because of Germany. They said to have introduced the right of self determination. But that was only done not for but against Germany and Austria. Their rights were violated in 1919 (and 1945 as well...). So the Germans in the Sudeten were not allowed to join Germany, Austria, too, parts of Silesia were departed against a plebiscite, that plebiscite concerning Eupen and Malmedy was a farce, Tondern and Appenrade were given to Denmark despite a German majority (infact the election circles were made to have the Germans a minority...), West Prussia was given away despite a strong German population (in the latest census there was a German majority in that province). So when Hitler cam to reclaim it, it was seen as legal.
IMO the problem was not Germany getting it back, but Hitler earning the fruits others, especially Rathenau and Stresemann, had planted.
And so we return to Versailles...

Adler

Indeed, it goes to show that people sometimes want to believe in something so badly that they put it ahead of all facts. This is true for Stalin as it is for Chamberlain.

Even though many people fell for Hitler's false promisses, I still blame them entirely for doing so. How could any decend ruler trust Hitler after he disrespected every treaty he signed, always claiming that it would be the last time? How could anyone not expect him to invade Poland after what happened in Rhineland, Czechslovakia and Austria? How could Stalin not believe in the countless warnings from the UK that a german attack was iminent, even though he knew that millions of german troops were moving east? Stalin's willing blindness allowed a good part of the soviet Air Force to be destroyed on the ground, it's almost insanely stupid.Stalin also executed many of his top officers shortly before the war.

Stalin also executed many of his top officers shortly before the war.
Not to mention both the casualties and humiliation incurred in the Winter War.

The problem is: Before Hitler's invasion of Chechoslovakia Europe had a bad conscience because of Germany. They said to have introduced the right of self determination. But that was only done not for but against Germany and Austria. Their rights were violated in 1919 (and 1945 as well...). So the Germans in the Sudeten were not allowed to join Germany, Austria, too, parts of Silesia were departed against a plebiscite, that plebiscite concerning Eupen and Malmedy was a farce, Tondern and Appenrade were given to Denmark despite a German majority (infact the election circles were made to have the Germans a minority...), West Prussia was given away despite a strong German population (in the latest census there was a German majority in that province). So when Hitler cam to reclaim it, it was seen as legal.
IMO the problem was not Germany getting it back, but Hitler earning the fruits others, especially Rathenau and Stresemann, had planted.
And so we return to Versailles...

Adler

Many people in the West understood that the problem was not Germny getting the areas populated by germans back, but rather that it was pretty clear that Hitler would not stop there.

The argumet used by the appeasers was precisey that Germany was "only taking back the lands of the germans", while the "hawks" pointed out quite correctly that the Nazis had no intention of stopping there - as they didn't.

It would have been far better for everyone, including Germany, if Britain and France had stopped them when they violated Rhineland (again, the problem is not re-taking Rhineland per se, but rather the context in which it took place).

I agree. But these leaders had to sell a war against Germany to their peoples. And although an invasion of the Rhineland should have been stopped, this seemed not possible. Although this invasions would have been soon over if they would have faced resistance. And in that case the German command even had plans to make a coup and put an end to Hitler's reign. It was much more a bluff. The few fighters flying on the skies had even no ammo and would have to retreat as soon as possible... The next chance was Munich. Here again Hitler could have been stopped. But Mussolini switched the sides and even prevented a coup by sitting in his car while someone wanted to throw a bomb into that car...
Hitler was perhaps (until 1945) one of the most luckiest persons in history...

Adler

The Versailles Mentality is so vile, by believing justified revenge.

Some of Stalin's worst ideas were copied from Trotsky. Like the forced collectivization of farms, and confiscating the production of peasants to pay for industrialization. When Trotsky first proposed them Stalin expressed his opposition, but after he came to power he was quick to promote said ideas as his own and put them in practice. Ah, but were those ideas "some of Stalin's worst" because they were unsound, or because they were poorly executed, with little understanding of their original intentions? They still may have failed, but probably not so badly.

Stalin was terrible, and Trotsky would have been somewhat better, but there are reasons against him:

1. He was head of the army probably some temptation to use it.
2. With less cruel rule, he couldn't have forced-labored the country into industrialization. Russia would probably still be a backwater, and be overrrun by the Germans with superior weapons.

Still, he wouldn't have killed 20 million people in a man-made famine...

But perhaps with Trotzky Hitler would not get the power at all. If the western powers needed Germany as ally against the Soviets Germany would be in a comfortable position to renegotiate Versailles and avoid Hitler.

Adler

But perhaps with Trotzky Hitler would not get the power at all. If the western powers needed Germany as ally against the Soviets Germany would be in a comfortable position to renegotiate Versailles and avoid Hitler.

Adler
Although it's also worth considering that a more active USSR could lead to more widespread anti-communism in Western Europe, and so could lead to a Western-backed invasion of the USSR by Nazi Germany.

Ah, but were those ideas "some of Stalin's worst" because they were unsound, or because they were poorly executed, with little understanding of their original intentions? They still may have failed, but probably not so badly.

They were not only unsound as they were absolutely cruel. Honestly, the only thing that in my opinion Trotsky would have dealt with better than Stalin was WW2. And that may be a huge difference, of course, but other than that we could expect all that makes Joe so famous: mass famines, purges, mock trials followed by executions, forced labour, etc. Trostky was not above any of that.

oh how much Poland would've been effected by this. No russian backstabbing in WWII, Poland might've not been communist and be a "mini" germany or france now (maybe), but also, no soviets to help us push against germany in '45, no industrializing of the country (Poland might've been the breadbasket of western europe). maybe i'll make a thread bout this?

oh how much Poland would've been effected by this. No russian backstabbing in WWII, Poland might've not been communist and be a "mini" germany or france now (maybe), but also, no soviets to help us push against germany in '45, no industrializing of the country (Poland might've been the breadbasket of western europe). maybe i'll make a thread bout this?

Trotsky was very internationalist, I'm sure he would've loved to have conquered Poland.

Poland would be in danger of being attacked by Trotzky, too. The cards would be completely new in the game if Trotzky could act like he wanted.

Adler

The death toll might be significantly higher if Trotsky became General Secretary of the CPSU.

"...the Party is always right..."

Trotsky would not have been general secretary. The position of general secretary only became powerful after Stalin was shunted aside into it. He really was just supposed to be a secretary after all.

I think for Trotsky to be 'in the game', Lenin would have had to live longer and not suffering from the strokes as happened in history. (Not to mention that Lenin became critical towards Stalin shortly before his death.) Apart from Lenin, Trotsky did not really have a strong political ally within the Bolshevik top-brass. (Even though Lenin had the common-sense to let Trotsky recruit former tsarist officers into the Red Army and run it pretty much like the Capitalists run theirs, there were a plenty of oppositions within the Bolshevik ranks. Though he got his way due to wartime expediency, there was no doubt that a plenty of Bolsheviks would have viewed him as an ambitious bastard not unlike Napoleon.) Although his most glorious moment was his time as the Comissar of Defense, it did not alter the fact that he had too few political allies. (The military just watched when Trotsky lost his position and became sidelined by Stalin & Co.) Furthermore, he was not particularly good at playing politics; Stalin did.

Therefore, even if Trotsky happens to succeed Lenin, I am not sure how well he could have maintained power like his arch-rival Stalin (who stayed in power for a tad over quarter of a century).

Lenin was no more critical of Stalin than he was of Trotsly, really. Modern leninists and trotskyists tend to point out to "Lenin's will" to show that Lenin did not trust Stalin. True enough, but the same will is full of criticisms towards Trotsky (who Lenin accused of beign a Menshevik), Khamenev and even Lenin's favourite, Bukharin (who he accused of never understanding marxist dialectics).

Basically, Lenin considered himself to be the only apt man in the world.

Lenin died pretty young i wonder what would have happened say he ruled 10 more years.

Trotsky was the man who should have been king, Stalin was a bastard(not really, but always a few rumors about it) from Georgia. Trotsky supported permanent revolution, Stalin supported Socialism in one state. Trotsky got an ice pick in the head, Stalin became "King".

Trotsky got an ice pick in the head


Yeah. I remember way back when we were studying the Soviet Union in geography class. I naively asked "Whatever happened to Trotsky?" My teacher replied, whispering,"He got it in the head with a icepick..." My class cringed.


Poor Trotsky

Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?/He got an ice pick/That made his ears burn
Huayna's post just reminded me of that... ;)

A specific example of Trotsky being a dick is the Kronstadt uprising of 1921 where revolutionary workers and sailors went on strike with a list of demands, namely freedom of speech, freedom of the press, immediate free elections, the right of assembly and freedom for all unions and peasant organisations, a comission to examine the cases of all those confined in prison camps, liberation of political prisoners...etc.

Lenin had always spoke of the party and the state being the "vanguard" of the revolution, but in comparison to this grassroots attempt by the Kronstatdt workers to actually further the stagnating revolution the Bolshies seemed outright conservative. They claimed that the sailors were being paid off by the capitalists. (And modern Trotskyists still say it!)

Trotsky led the Red Army assault on Kronstadt and crushed the workers' rebellion.

By this time many people were wondering whether the Bolsheviks really stood for socialism or if they merely used the rehtoric of Marxism to justify their new dictatorship. After all, they had silenced or disappeared all the other revolutionaries; the SRs, the anarchists, the Workers' Opposition (who wanted the economy to be run by workers' unions and not by the state) and taken power away from the workers' councils, factory committees, and village assemblies.

So Trotsky or Stalin? No, I'd side with the average Russian peasant or proletarian who actually wanted socialism and democracy and not a state-capitalist dictatorship.