Trotsky vs Stalin

[luiz]

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).

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[plarq]

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

 

[Cuchullain]

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.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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...

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[TheLastOne36]

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?

 

[Kraznaya]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[White Fox]

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.

 

[neutrino]

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).

 

[luiz]

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.

 

[chad187]

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

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

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".

 

[Huayna Capac357]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

[QUOTE="The Stranglers]Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?/He got an ice pick/That made his ears burn[/QUOTE]
Huayna's post just reminded me of that...

 

[Wob Shop]

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.