what would have happened if Trotsky became premiere instead of Stalin?

[monkspider]

Something that I have always thought interesting is to consider what would have happened if Trotsky became premiere instead of Stalin? Would the USSR still be here today? Would it have been defeated by Germany in WW II?
What does this board think?

 

[Pellaken]

well

he would have helped the people, the standard of living would have risen, he would have democratised the system {partially... but still a little}

then hitler would have invaded, won, taken russia, then won the war

but....
the USSR did have close realations with the weimar republic...
perhaps there would have been no hitler if trotsky taken over...

in that case, russia would have risen to #1, and by 1960, been the worlds leading superpower. trotskyist socailists would have taken power over europe, democratized it, turned it into more of a socail-democracy, which would have swept back to russia. by 1970, all poor nations would use this government, and, IMHO, by 1980, the world.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Okay, it's 1924, and Lenin's testament sinks any hopes for Stalin to succeed. Trotsky succeeds Lenin.

First, I want to establish that Trotsky was very much a hardliner, even though he came aboard the Bolshevik bandwagon late. In fact, it was the fear that he would abandon the more moderate policies instituted after the civil war (which Stalin would abandon later, anyway) that contributed to his actual downfall.

He would not have forced so massive a industrialization effort as Stalin, though, so Russia probably wouldn't have had the production it had to throw against the Nazis during the War.

However, he was a brilliant military organizer who's ability allowed the Reds to defeat the Interventionists. He would have also contributed more to Communist movements abroad, having not abandoned international Socialism.

I might conjecture that Trotsky could still have led the Soviets to victory. Two additional points: He would not have manouvered the USSR into a pact with Germany, thus Hitler would not have been confident of security to the east. It would not have discredited the Communist community worldwide. Also, having not so thoroughly brutalized his country, Communism would not have had the same stigma attached to it as that after Stalin's death when Khrushchev revealed the truth.

Personally, I imagine the post war would have been less confrontational. But ultimately, the same economic problems would have hurt it. But it probably wouldn't have had to feel that it needed to overspend on it's military, and likely would survive today, not really an "evil empire", but not a superpower either. Maybe a step ahead of China, but less stable.
Just as responsible for the Soviet collapse as the economic stagnation was the nationalities issue which would not have been any better under a Trosky-influenced USSR.

 

[Hamlet]

What exactly is your basis for the idea that The USSR would have not industrialised as successfully under Trotsky as Stalin?

We have to remember that Stalin ultimately went down the policy path of The Left after he had defeated them.

And the idea that he would have even partially democratised the system is a joke, and probably arises from a sentimental western assesment of him.

Tbh, I can't really see the system going down a terribly different path under him than it did in actuallity.

More later.

 

[dannyevilcat]

What exactly is your basis for the idea that The USSR would have not industrialised as successfully under Trotsky as Stalin?

Stalin approached the modernization of the Soviet Union brilliantly, albeit brutally. While he flogged the people to produce, produce, produce, and gulags thrived as a means of low cost labour, and he took the food from the country to feed the cities, traded off even more wheat for machinery... at the same time, he prevented real political dissention through major purges sparked by the staged variety. Would Trotsky have so completely destroyed the Kulaks during the collectivization of agriculture?

The USSR was very much a kettle that needed to let off steam.
Remember the famous quote by Stalin, that they were 50 to 100 years behind the west, and must make good this distance in just 20 years or they would be crushed? I very much agree that Trotsky would have viewed a great deal of the people as expendible for the advancement of Socialism, but he was highly unlikely to become so harsh a tyrant, and would have needed a softer (I'm not talking kid gloves here, though) method of implementing it.
Thus, the industialization of the USSR would have taken longer, IMHO.