What if Trotsky had won?

[newfangle]

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.
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

 

[Juize]

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]

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.

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]

Trotsky wouldn't have won, Lenin would have -- Lenin wouldn't have ever been poisoned.

 

[Toasty]

Except for the fact Trotsky was killed with an ice pick.

 

[HotDog Fish]

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]

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

Yeah, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and China could have done that on their own.

 

[amadeus]

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]

Originally posted by Greadius
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]

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]

We have a history forum for these topics, and this one has come up there.....moved.

 

[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. 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]

No,it's the opposite i think

 

[polymath]

Well, it's 20 years since I was taught it so you may be right there!

 

[amadeus]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.