View Full Version : What if Trotsky had won?


newfangle
Jul 18, 2002, 04:25 PM
Anyone if wonder what would have happened if Troksky won leadership over Stalin?

Im guessing the following things:
1. WW2 Eastern Front would have gone a lot smoother for the allies, Trotsky was a brilliant tactician.
2. There probably wouldn't have been a Ukrainian genocide.
3. He would have given communism a chance instead of a horrible reputation.:mad:
4.He possibly could have stabilized instead of stalinized the Russian economy.

Any others? Agree/disagree?

Lets hear it, I need something to do at work before I go home and try 1.29:D

Juize
Jul 18, 2002, 04:37 PM
1. WW2 Eastern Front would have gone a lot smoother for the allies, Trotsky was a brilliant tactician.

...if Trotsky would've leaded the Russians, Hitler would've crushed Russia in -39,
and Lebensraum would've became true. Also, nazi's would have a strong position in
European political elite, and Europe would've be a lot more stronger compared to US.

Hamlet
Jul 18, 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by newfangle
1. WW2 Eastern Front would have gone a lot smoother for the allies, Trotsky was a brilliant tactician.

If the Soviets had reached WW2 intact, and if WW2 had actually occured, and if the Red Army and Soviet state had the industrial resources, then yes, that would have helped.

But they are very big 'if's'

Originally posted by newfangle
3. He would have given communism a chance instead of a horrible reputation.:mad:

No he wouldn't.

The man was as arrogant and as motivated by politcal ends as Lenin and Stalin were. He was utterly brutal when he wanted to be. His disicipline of The Red Army was rather harsh, to say the least.

Trotsky susbscribed to the 'The revolution is more important than X' philosoophy entirely.

Also, abandon all airy-fairy western-liberal notions of Trotsky being a semi-democrat or a humanist now.

Originally posted by newfangle
4.He possibly could have stabilized instead of stalinized the Russian economy.

Could he have brutally industrialised on he same scale Stalin did? I'm guessing not.

Essentially, The Soviet state collapses in WW2 or before, or if it survives, history is barely changed.

This should be on the history board, btw.

Trotsky - The Eternal Revolutionary by Dmitri Volkogonov is a good biography of him that dispels a lot of the crap surrounding him also.

amadeus
Jul 18, 2002, 05:02 PM
Trotsky wouldn't have won, Lenin would have -- Lenin wouldn't have ever been poisoned.

Toasty
Jul 18, 2002, 05:43 PM
Except for the fact Trotsky was killed with an ice pick.

HotDog Fish
Jul 18, 2002, 06:25 PM
I surprised that nobody noticed somebody with an ice pick, in Mexico of all places. Trotsky had his pros and cons, sure he wouldn't have killed as many people as Stalin, but Stalin had his 5 -Year plan(or was that 4 year, my memory isn't all that great) but even thought it cost millions of lives it industrialized The USSR into a modern super power from a backwards agricultural society. Trotsky would at least be better at public relations then Stalin, he would of made relations with other nations, he would also see Nazi Germany as a 'Counter Revolutionary force' and done as much as he could to try to stop them, Trotsky as stated above was a better tactician than Stalin, it was Trotsky who led the Red Army to defeat the whites and British and French troops sent there with superior weapons, the Soviet Union also probably would as be as dictatorial either. But Trotsky also had a very unpleasent side, he was rather ruthless and and sometimes extremely cold, he certainly wouldn't have the whole Cult of personality' that Stalin had, and I'm pretty sure he would have had all the Stalinist executed like how Stalin had all of Trosky's supporters. He wouldn't go throught with Russia's rapid industrialization but he would have industrialized Russia over a longer period of time. But anyways I can honestly say almost anybody would be better than Stalin

Greadius
Jul 18, 2002, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by newfangle
He would have given communism a chance instead of a horrible reputation.:mad: :rolleyes: Yeah, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and China could have done that on their own.

amadeus
Jul 18, 2002, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Toasty
Except for the fact Trotsky was killed with an ice pick.

You don't think Stalin would have tried to knock off Trotsky if Trotsky had taken power over Stalin? Stalin killed his best buddies, so what makes you think Stalin would stop at his worst enemy?

CornMaster
Jul 19, 2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Greadius
:rolleyes: Yeah, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and China could have done that on their own.

You are offically a DL of rmsharpe. ;)

Or a clone......because that's his lame ass excuse on every Communism arguement.

Ahhh...keep that broken record spinning. :)


To be on topic...I know very little of Trotsky. But few can be more brutal and paranoid then Stalin. So I don't think it could have gotten much worse for the Russian people. Would Russia have progressed so quickly? Not sure.

Greadius
Jul 19, 2002, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by CornMaster
Or a clone......because that's his lame ass excuse on every Communism arguement.
Ahhh...keep that broken record spinning. I'd do a disservice to my immediate and extended family that have suffered severely in my lifetime as a direct result of Communism.

Perhaps the arguement is used so frequently and responded too so passively because it is effective, and true. Simply by stating the names of the nations, the crimes committed against innocent people by those nations in the name of Communism overshadow any attempt at refuting or denying the facts. Just a wink and a pass.
Ignore the past and you shall be doomed to repeat it. How many times has Communism been tried by various states, in various regions, of various sizes, with various peoples? How many times has it succeeded in its goals, and how many times has it turned the nation into an oppressive, murderous, police state? How many people have to die before it is acknowledged that Communism doesn't work?

How many chances does Communism deserve to 'get it right'?

Alcibiaties of Athenae
Jul 19, 2002, 04:05 AM
We have a history forum for these topics, and this one has come up there.....moved.

polymath
Jul 19, 2002, 09:11 AM
As I understand it (on a simplified level, I admit), there was one really big difference between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky believed Russia should not aggressively seek to impose Communism on other countries, and should prove that it would work as a system of government in Russia first. Stalin believed Communism should be forced on all countries by any means possible. This, I was taught, is why Trotsky was killed.
As for the answer to the original question, I have no idea.

Damien
Jul 19, 2002, 09:31 AM
No,it's the opposite i think

polymath
Jul 19, 2002, 09:33 AM
Well, it's 20 years since I was taught it so you may be right there!

amadeus
Jul 19, 2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by polymath
Stalin believed Communism should be forced on all countries by any means possible. This, I was taught, is why Trotsky was killed. As for the answer to the original question, I have no idea.

Trotsky was about to reveal that Stalin had poisoned Lenin, and Stalin was so afraid of what would happen if that came out, he ordered his men in Mexico to kill Trotsky.

Interestingly enough, Stalin had hired a man that looked like Trotsky and aptly named him "Trotsky Two" -- this was done for a propaganda film that he put on where the Trotsky Two was put on a train to be exiled from Russia.

newfangle
Jul 19, 2002, 11:57 AM
rmsharpe, would it be fair to assume that all of those "evil" communist countries you mentioned, would be much different had Trotsky assumed control. North Korea would be far different.

Good job Cornmaster :)

Hamlet
Jul 19, 2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Trotsky was about to reveal that Stalin had poisoned Lenin, and Stalin was so afraid of what would happen if that came out, he ordered his men in Mexico to kill Trotsky.

Heh, where did you hear this conspiracy theory?

Doesn't it strike you as slightly odd that it took Trotsky nigh-on 15 years to decide to present this evidence to the world?

My god, I know the man had a poor grasp of how to play politics, but that's ridiculous! :lol:

Originally posted by Polymath
As I understand it (on a simplified level, I admit), there was one really big difference between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky believed Russia should not aggressively seek to impose Communism on other countries, and should prove that it would work as a system of government in Russia first.

Actually this was, to simplfy the whole issue, more Stalin's position than Trotsky's.

Stalin was from the right of the party, which drew on nationalism, and espoused the belief that The USSR should strengthen itself to protect the revolution, and offer itself as an example to the rest of the world.

Trotsky's was more a view of spreading the revolution abroad, and in that sense was much more internationalist than Stalin.

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Greadius
I'd do a disservice to my immediate and extended family that have suffered severely in my lifetime as a direct result of Communism.

Perhaps the arguement is used so frequently and responded too so passively because it is effective, and true. Simply by stating the names of the nations, the crimes committed against innocent people by those nations in the name of Communism overshadow any attempt at refuting or denying the facts. Just a wink and a pass.
Ignore the past and you shall be doomed to repeat it. How many times has Communism been tried by various states, in various regions, of various sizes, with various peoples? How many times has it succeeded in its goals, and how many times has it turned the nation into an oppressive, murderous, police state? How many people have to die before it is acknowledged that Communism doesn't work?

How many chances does Communism deserve to 'get it right'?

Most of those nations did get the butt-end so to speak, but I don't think you should lump them all together like that. Remember South Vietnam was basically a state of crooks before the Vietnam War. The Americans didn't exactly hoist them up because of their record of exemplifying the ideals of the United States. I also don't remeber the communists dumping agent orange all over the jungle, doing irreparable damage. Most of the Vietnamese gangs in places like Canada and the United States are not that good of a representation of the Vietnamese people, rather they were the rich people of society who bought their way to the west, mostly through dirty money. All those crooked people were basically the South Vietnamese regime.

That is just an example, and I know the Eastern Europe didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, but my point was that you can't lump all the communists together as the worst that could happen to their countries. I would rather live in Cuba than Mexico.

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Damien
No,it's the opposite i think

Trotsky did want to promote communism in other countries, but not through military aggression, but rather through supporting forces within the countries, while staying on Russia's own turf.

Stalin was the one who wanted to go buckwild.

Sobieski
Jul 19, 2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by newfangle
rmsharpe, would it be fair to assume that all of those "evil" communist countries you mentioned, would be much different had Trotsky assumed control. North Korea would be far different.

Good job Cornmaster :)

You can't blame rmsharpe for everything. It was Graedius who made the comments about the other countries.

Lord_Vetinari
Jul 20, 2002, 07:26 AM
One of the reasons that Stalin won the struggle within the party was that his idea of "communism in one country" seemed more doable that Trotsky's vision of international communism.

Since Trotsky was all about international communism, it is not that far fetched to asume that he might have interfered more in other countries' affairs to ensure that communist parties stayed in power. This could perhaps have meant direct confrontations between Americans and Soviets in Korea, which wold have been quite ugly.

Agamemnus
Jul 29, 2002, 03:44 PM
Stalin killed almost all his generals. Even though Stalin himself was a brilliant tactician (aside from trusting Hitler!!), he only had one general, Zhukov to rely on. He killed all the rest.

RNolan
Jul 29, 2002, 04:22 PM
If Trotsky had won then WWII might have started in the 20's after the other European powers got fed up of Troskeyite interventions in their countries.

Yours

Ross

Agamemnus
Jul 29, 2002, 04:50 PM
Germany? Maybe.
Italy? Maybe.
Britain? No.
France? No.

Why? There was a thing called :confused: ... uhhh.. what's it called again? Why France waited several months to attack Germany in WWII (and not until Germany attacked)..er..... um.

Mītiu Ioan
Jul 30, 2002, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Agamemnus
France? No.


Really ? I know that the commies won the elections in 1936 in France...

Regards

pi8ch
Jul 30, 2002, 04:04 AM
I don't think there were much difference...

You can't drive a totaly "communistic" state without beeing brute!

Why should i work if i get my money anyway?
Because i get killed if I won't

That's the point....
A system that isn't based upon personal profit can't work without a strong leader!


About the tactical thing....

I think that the Sovjets had been briliant tactitians all the time...
They achieved a lot, didn't they?

Not to mention later in the cold war when thy were always in front of the US...

Agamemnus
Jul 30, 2002, 04:34 AM
The following is an unresearcherd rant, brought to you by Agamemnus.

Trotsky was gonna marry a PAINTER for god's sake!

Don't tell me the Soviets had brilliant tacticians.. the Germans used large divisions of tanks NOT mixed with infantry. The Russians did not counter this threat with the same, but used infantry mixed with tanks, thereby increasing their losses and increasing their chances of being ENCIRCLED!!!

Stalin was very very paranoid and killed many many millions of people. Sure he started an industrialization, one that was going to happen anyways. (The monarchs WERE interested in industrialization, and WERE trying to westernize, just had a lot of family problems :( )

He killed many millions of people. He allowed many millions of his own people to die just to put the German army where he could be most effective. He was just like Hitler, and did not allow his soldiers to retreat. Only after he knew he would turn back the tide did he formally issue his position on the war, "Not one step back!" HAH!

He put almost all his aircraft at the border in Poland so that they were within range of the German bombers and utterly destroyed in the 'surprise' attack. This meant that he was forced to pull back.
Stalin was an utter fool and the following five year plans focused on military production of tanks, rather than production of goods.
He forced people to STARVE while they built TANKS for him! He started the cold war.

Stalin TRUSTED Hitler! He hated the Jews, and besides being brutal dicators who did nothing but drive their countries into ruin, that was the only thing they had in common.

Trotsky would have made a much better leader for the Soviet Union, but I don't think he would have left Mexico even if he wasn't assasinated.

Trotsky --> [dance]
Stalin --> :mwaha:

PS: 'France: No' meant that France would not just attack the Soviet Union just because it would be trying to instill the Communist party inside it. They are getting taken over by Muslim extremists ATM, and what do they do? Nothing.

pi8ch
Jul 30, 2002, 04:49 AM
PS: 'France: No' meant that France would not just attack the Soviet Union just because it would be trying to instill the Communist party inside it. They are getting taken over by Muslim extremists ATM, and what do they do? Nothing.

All the world talks about "Austrains far right party of Haider", but nobody about Le Pen's "front nationale".

The "front nationale" is realy far right, and does not deny it!
Nobody says that le Pen gets about 30% of all votes, haider "only" 22%. btw - Haider's party isn't far right, its a "populistic" party - Haider says the things the people want to hear. Without Haider his party wouldn't be different from any other "normal" party.


What i wanted to say: of course France is doing something!
What do you suggest they should do? Or what else they could do?

Agamemnus
Jul 30, 2002, 04:58 AM
Well you don't see France invading Iraq or Iran do you? The proposition that France (and the rest of Europe) would invade the Soviet Union if Trotsky was in power, because of his would-be spread of communism to other nations like France is absurd.

PS: I do concede that perhaps France is trying to do something, but something as drastic as war. :)

pi8ch
Jul 30, 2002, 05:01 AM
The proposition that France (and the rest of Europe) would invade the Soviet Union if Trotsky was in power, because of his would-be spread of communism to other nations like France is absurd.
Totalay agree! That's absurd!

Well you don't see France invading Iraq or Iran do you?
I thought you ment the take-over from the inside (immigrants).

Agamemnus
Jul 30, 2002, 05:06 AM
Yes I did, but perhaps that's why France is a bit shaky on any sort of war..

pi8ch
Jul 30, 2002, 05:23 AM
Yes I did, but perhaps that's why France is a bit shaky on any sort of war..

hmm.. wouldn't say that. They just don't do that what the US tells them like the British are doing it.

I'm Austrian, an so *naturaly* :D no France - fan, but i think they have done great things togehter with Germany the last 50 years, and I'm very happy that they act like Europeans and not like US-servants.

PS: I'm not sure, but I think France has a more powerfull or at least the same powerfull Army than the British...

Mītiu Ioan
Jul 30, 2002, 06:50 AM
Sorry - my mistake ...

I understood that the problem is if France will be an easy target for Soviet infiltrations if Trotsky would lead U.S.S.R.

Regards

RNolan
Jul 30, 2002, 02:17 PM
I don't think its that absurd...Muslim extremeists are not likely to overthrow the goverment after all.

In the 20's and 30's the French (and the British) did fear the Communists seizing power and if a Trotsky regime was active war would have happen.

There really isn't any comparing the situation today with say Iraq. Also remember that the USSR itself would not have been thought of as millitarily supreme - unless one counts the Civil War, Russia had been defeated in every war since the 1880's.

Yours

Ross

Hamlet
Jul 30, 2002, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by RNolan
In the 20's and 30's the French (and the British) did fear the Communists seizing power and if a Trotsky regime was active war would have happen.

I find it hard to believe that any of The European nations would have reacted differently if Trotsky would have been in power. Although, it would all depend on how Trotsky acted in office.

It certainly wouldn't have been a definite outcome.

RNolan
Jul 30, 2002, 05:44 PM
I don't see why they wouldn't have acted differently if Trotsky behaved in any way characteristically. In fact I would be astonished if steps to contain 'Trotskyitism' had not been taken.

Yours

Ross

pi8ch
Jul 31, 2002, 12:15 AM
i can't see how the whole Trozky affair is connected with the communists in the reest of Europe...

i can say this for Austria:

It was after WW1, but before the German anexion...

There had been Communisitc, Socialistic, Conservative and "Great Germany" parties.

Most votes had been for Socialists and Conservatives...

The Conservative got the Chancellor, and became the leading party.... The Socialists didn't want to follow them...

It leads to Civil War in Austria, wich was won by they Conservatices who became fascist, friend of Mussolini and oposite to Hitler.. Was a kind of dictatorship then

But the Conservatives forbit all left wing parties...
After this many Socialists went to the USSR and became Communists, becuase they thought that "Socialism" can't be brought with politics any longer...


You see - most Communists in europe became only communists to be in oposition to the right-wing dictatorships.

Hamlet
Aug 01, 2002, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by RNolan
I don't see why they wouldn't have acted differently if Trotsky behaved in any way characteristically. In fact I would be astonished if steps to contain 'Trotskyitism' had not been taken.

Well, what do you assume Trotsky would have done?

I think saying that Trotsky would have gone guns blazing around Europe is a gross over-estimation, but there would have been differences. The USSR would have took on a more interventionalist role, but I doubt it would have been enough for The Allies to consider war.

Perhaps later, if Trotsky grows in confidence if he is succesful, but in the twenties or early thirties, I think not.

We must remember that there had already been a half-hearted attempt by the allies to already dispose of the Communist regime, which had been essentially abandoned. The political mainstream after the war was not exactly hardline anti-communist, more it was a sort of indifferent distaste.

Agamemnus
Aug 01, 2002, 05:39 PM
Oh yes, I remember it:

APPEASEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What did the Allies do when Poland was gobbled up by Russia and Germany??

NOTHING

When Belgium and France was falling England was EVACUATING because they didn't put nearly enough defenders there!

So what makes you think that they would have reacted with declaring war on the USSR if it had been importing communism?

The allies did nothing to really pressure the Soviet regime until the Soviets developed the nuclear bomb.

Definite answer to thread question: I wouldn't be living in America right now but probably in the mini-palace my ancestors had before the onslaught of Stalin's communism. :egypt:

Hamlet
Aug 02, 2002, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Agamemnus
What did the Allies do when Poland was gobbled up by Russia and Germany??

NOTHING

They declared war, as far as I remember.

Originally posted by Agamemnus
When Belgium and France was falling England was EVACUATING because they didn't put nearly enough defenders there!

Yes, they were evacuating because The BEF was at risk of being completely obliterated!

Originally posted by Agamemnus
The allies did nothing to really pressure the Soviet regime until the Soviets developed the nuclear bomb.

Civil war incursions into Russia?

Agamemnus
Aug 02, 2002, 05:45 AM
1) They declared war but they still did NOTHING.
2) If they put more troops at the beginning, especially their leak at Belgium, they could have stopped the Germans cold.
3) A heartless effort deserves no thanks..

Hamlet
Aug 02, 2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Agamemnus
1) They declared war but they still did NOTHING.
2) If they put more troops at the beginning, especially their leak at Belgium, they could have stopped the Germans cold.
3) A heartless effort deserves no thanks..

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Smoking mirror
Aug 11, 2002, 09:36 AM
Stalin was the worst, most horificly evil leader in history! But his defence of the soviet union in the "great patriotic war" was satisfactory if not effective. It was the bravery of the soviet people that won WWII, though it cost them dearly.

Professor I. A. Kuganov estimates that some 66,000,000 people were killed in the USSR between 1917 and 1953... (This does not) include the 30,000,000 killed in the second world war.. To put this in context the russian federation now has a populattion of 150,000,000 assuming the ravages of communism had never occured the actual population should be about 300,000,000... Robert Harris - Archangel p156

It is safe to say that even if Trotsky could be "a bit cold" or "ruthless" it still would not have amounted to 50% of the population killed for his own glory/peace of mind. Even if trotsky had not been able to modernise the USSR as fast as Stalin he would have had other advantages.
His stance on the spread of international Socialism through revolution would have had a direct effect on the out come of the spanish civil war- Stalin stole the republics gold, took over the military and wasted the lives of the brave spaniards in useless "prestige" operations to show "the profesionalism" of the Soviet Army; His performance did much to raise his reputation with the conservative governments of britain and france, as well as dispell thier fears over the export of Soviet revolution to thier own countries- but it also lost spain to facsism (and through out europe weakend the socialist cause; the only real oposition to the facists), The repubic started the war in a good position, though they were isolated and hated by the rest of europe, britain and france (under presure from british threats "to leave them at the mercy of the axis powers if they didn't do what they were told") organised strong non-interventionist organisation against the republic, while allowing the germans and italians a free hand in arming the Nationalists.
The repuplic, givern suficient aid from moscow and better strategies, could have won the civil war or at least have continued resistance untill war broke out in europe. A victorious repubilcian spain would have been a major victory also for Trotsky and international socialism- though it could easily have turned the british and french against him.

I would like to think that if britian or france had tried to enter the war on the side of the Axis (as oponents of international socailism) it would have meant civil war in one or both those countries, Apeasement was one thing, but alliance with the nazis? I don't think any one would have stood for it.

Imagine the start of WWII in 1938 (the invasion of czechezlovakia would be resisted with aid from russia, and the czechs were actualy in quite a good position to defend against the germans, thier defences in the sudetenland were very formidable) spain is either all republican with some right wing partisans causing trouble, or at least half and half, France is almost certianly in civil war (the country was very unstable at this time, tensions between left and right were strianed to breaking point, it was only the threat of the germans that bought both side together- though it was still an unhappy marige, the communist sabotaged the planes and tanks that were used in the defence of the country because they didn't want to go to war- the Communist propoganda of the time was aimed at non agression). And Britain? The UK would never have been in a position to do anthing apart from defend itself right up to the mid 1940s, the battle of britain could only have been won with help from the americans, who would never have been in favour of aliance with the nazis (whatever you can say about the USA you have to agree that Rosevelt was a good man).

Trotskies Russia would have been hard pressed to defend against the Germans, he didn't foster the same kind of Virulent nationalism favoured by Stalin, but not entering in to the non agression pact would have alowed the rusians to sut up thier traditional "defence in depth" which also would not have been weakend by thier over extention in to Poland (a large area of undefendable land).

Perhaps trotsky would have failed in the defence of Russia, but if he didn't you can bet that the fate of the defeated German people would not have been as bad as it was under Stalin, and that a russia with 100% higher population would have been beter suited to a communist economy.

Bifrost
Aug 13, 2002, 03:29 PM
:) Maybe if Trotsky won that battle against Stalin there would be a thread like "if stalin could resist Trotsky what would russia look like" or something of the kind.:(


Unfortunately Trotsky was much alike Stalin - if he came to reign his politics would be the same as Stalin's, maybe Trotsky was smarter, but he didn't belong to so-called "romantic communists" that wanted to create the world without money,the world of equality and friendship. Trotsky was a magnificent commander in chief, but he was very cruel - the discipline in Russian army of 1918-1921 can easily prove it.

So my opinion is that Trotsky couldnt be better than Stalin.
But such persons like Kamenev, Zinoviev, even Lenin (if two of them werent be shoot) could better the situation

Smoking mirror
Aug 15, 2002, 07:55 AM
"Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a lamb"

I think russia, its physical makeup and its history tends to breed a certain sort of leader; Stalins role model was Ivan the terrible.
Yes Trotsky probably was just as bad as stalin when it came to ruthlessnes and he was certainly no romantic, but the real difference was in the way the two people wanted communism to progress; Trotsky's plan, with out the benifit of hindsight, would have been very risky, effectivly making the soviet uniton the enemy of every forien state with its provocative internationalist stance, while Stalin's strategy would have seemed much more safe; Safe indeed if not for the fact that the world was about to be plunged in to 50 years of conflict- from 1939 to 1989 the soviets were in a war of ideoligies first with the germans and later with the whole of the west.
With hind sight, Stalin's strategy of Communism in isolation had most of Trotsky's risks with few of his advantages.

If Trotsky's Russia had survived WWII it would have been in a much better position to start the cold war- if his regime had also managed to get hold of the A-bomb, that is.