What would a Trotsky dominated Soviet Union have looked like?

[tarvu]

I'm making a Trotskyite mod for Hearts of Iron 3, mostly for myself but that I will also make available to others who are interested. So I'm hear to ask the question:

What would a Trotsky dominated Soviet Union look like?

Would Trotsky have let the Triumvirate live? Would he have brought about mass democracy? Would he thus have enemies within the Soviet leadership that were more of a threat to him, than all the purged were in reality to Joseph Stalin? Is there more Soviet unity among the Ukrainians?

Would there have been a focus on spreading the revolution? Would this and not the invasion of Poland be the spark that ignited World War 2? What would have happened in Spain, or even China for that matter? Would the USSR and Japan have gone to war much much earlier?

What could have given Trotsky the push over Stalin to begin with? The Red Army somehow becoming involved? Maybe aggression from anti-Communist governments making Communism in one state appear less likely to some other party leaders.

Here is a link to the mod page on this forum as well if anyone is interested, once I have a simple alpha done to release I'll post it on the Paradox forums.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post12498878

[Raubritter]

The same.

These freaks were psychophats all of them. Trotsky started his first day in Mexican exile infiltrating the United States and american trotzkists created the Neo-Cons.

[tarvu]

The same.

These freaks were psychophats all of them. Trotsky started his first day in Mexican exile infiltrating the United States and american trotzkists created the Neo-Cons.

Your 60 year sleeper cell zionist conspiracy theories aside.

I assume by the same you mean oppressive, corrupt, and belligerent then that's a fair opinion.

But come on, the same? There is no way it would have been the same, they had vastly different political views, different support bases, oh and then there was the whole million people dying in the Great Purge.

[Blaze86420]

The same.

These freaks were psychophats all of them. Trotsky started his first day in Mexican exile infiltrating the United States and american trotzkists created the Neo-Cons.

Lawl, this is by far the greatest thing that has ever been said on TWC. If this ain't signature material then I don't know what is.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think Trotsky would be worse than Stalin. Trotsky was brilliant.

Trotsky would probably be less destructive to the USSR than Stalin, which would in all likelihood make it more dangerous and more capable of launching the global red crusade.

WW2 probably wouldn't happen.

Less purges may mean the Soviets will be preempting the Axis...

[Dr. Croccer]

Trotsky was a far more fervent adherent of the notion of 'global revolution' and Marxist dogmas in general, whilst Stalin was far more pragmatic in his foreign policy. So it's likely that Trotsky would've been more internationally active than Stalin. I doubt Trotsky would've been that different though, many of Stalin's decisions would've been logical to most Old Bolsheviks. Trotsky would've still ended the NEP and enforced collectivisation, possibly with even less sympathy than Stalin (who did agree to sent aid, it's likely that Trotsky would've refused out of ideological reasons), and would've enforced political repression to safeguard his own vision.

Trotsky is often the poster child of anti-Stalinist Communists but he was easily just as ruthless as Stalin without any of his opportunism and plotting. It's just as possible that the USSR would've been worse off, perhaps even destroyed before the 1940s if Trotsky spooked the rest of Europe adequately enough.

[Raubritter]

Your 60 year sleeper cell zionist conspiracy theories aside.

I assume by the same you mean oppressive, corrupt, and belligerent then that's a fair opinion.

But come on, the same? There is no way it would have been the same, they had vastly different political views, different support bases, oh and then there was the whole million people dying in the Great Purge.

I can't see any difference between Trotzki and Stalin. Trotzki wrote that people would gather around the revolution if there would be a constant shortage of everything. Goods and services. What did Stalin do as same as Lenin? Causing Famine. They shared the same sick ideas, they were communists. Its a mental sickness which killed millions of people all around the globe in the nearly same ways every time.

[Rights of the Individual]

I wouldn't say it's a mental illness as much of a lack of competence.

[Dr. Croccer]

What did Stalin do as same as Lenin? Causing Famine.

It's rather silly to imply that both of them willingly starved their people when there's so much evidence against it. Lenin enforced a policy of grain requisitioning during the civil war for what was essentially a total war economy. It remained for years as it functioned adequately for a while but discontent led to the NEP in 1921, which was a form of smale-scale capitalism, with Lenin reasoning that Russia needed to industrialize by normal means (i.e. somewhat capitalist means) before the socialist revolution could properly happen. Similarly, when Stalin enforced collectivisation he was harsh but there's no evidence that he planned for the Holodomor to happen. In reality, he showed personal interest in resolving it and aid was sent soon after the local authorities reported shortages, the problem was that the collectivisation system was so broken that neither the population nor the state possessed much food, and the Ukraine had absolutely nothing. The stupid policies of the government and their clumsiness in resolving it mean that they are still guilty, but there's no sign of intent. Nor would that be logical.

Both leaders were horrible men without needing to exaggerate or fabricate extra crimes about them, obfuscating the reality that needs to be seen clearly.

[Raubritter]

It's rather silly to imply that both of them willingly starved their people when there's so much evidence against it.

Silly? How naive are you? Mao starved people to death, Stalin did it, its a tool to gain more political power and eliminate their opponents. Hell, since the Norman Invasion 1066 we know tyrants starve people to death!
They do this on purpose.

[justicar5]

I think Trotsky would be worse than Stalin. Trotsky was brilliant.

Trotsky would probably be less destructive to the USSR than Stalin, which would in all likelihood make it more dangerous and more capable of launching the global red crusade.

WW2 probably wouldn't happen.

Less purges may mean the Soviets will be preempting the Axis...

Fair actually, Trotsky had created the Red Army as a fighting force, and it can be argued that Stalin's purges of the Army where based on the fear of Trotsky's old comrades in the higher ranks (And being nuts). Very unlikely Trotsky would have entered into the pacts with Germany (the military tech sharing of the Weimar era, or the NAP under Hitler) because he most likely wouldn't have needed to. However the rise of NAzism would also have been made less likely, Stalin made a massive miscalculation that a Nazi government would lead to revolution as he saw them as reaction on the march, so ordered the German communists not to form a united front with the opposition against the rise of the Reich.

Onto foreign affairs: Franco would be boned, hard. A USSR that wasn't tearing itself apart in a paranoid fever dream would be in far better shape to aid the Republic against Franco in the Civil war, and more likely to make common cause with the Anarchists, we could then see an ongoing Civil war in Spain at the start of the time span of WW2, or even worse for the Axis a communist Spain that is hostile to them.

However it isn't all roses, above all Trotsky was competent, methodical and sane, this does not in any way make him our friend, the failure of Fascism could very well have been achieved early, replaced with a resurgent Communist party devoted to world revolution, run from Moscow by a brilliant and charismatic man. That is not necessarily a good thing.

I can't see any difference between Trotzki and Stalin. Trotzki wrote that people would gather around the revolution if there would be a constant shortage of everything. Goods and services. What did Stalin do as same as Lenin? Causing Famine. They shared the same sick ideas, they were communists. Its a mental sickness which killed millions of people all around the globe in the nearly same ways every time.

Pay attention to what Trotsky means here. People would flock to the revolution if they where shortages, if the old overlords cannot supply bread and circuses get new ones. Rather than Mao's supreme disinterest in the results of a policy (meaning millions of deaths) we have a savy assessment, people with nothing to loose fight very hard for what little they have.

[Dragus]

I'm making a Trotskyite mod for Hearts of Iron 3.

Marry me immediately.

Also, insert agreement with justicar and an appropriately humorous comment towards Raubritter's posting.

[Sir Adrian]

Similarly, when Stalin enforced collectivization he was harsh but there's no evidence that he planned for the Holodomor to happen.

Than why is it that the regions that were hit by the famine coincided exactly with the regions where Stalin had ordered the militia to confiscate all food reserves from the villages just a few months before the first wave of famine.

The Holodomor was entirely premeditated. By the early 1930's the Ukrainians were less than happy to be a part of the Soviet Union and more of them started clamoring for independence. Couple that with a rapidly rising population and you have a big problem on your hands. By forcing a mass starvation he killed two birds with one stone - he put the Ukrainians to heel, and he ensured that they remain obedient by eliminating almost all of the Ukrainian elite.

He did the exact same thing, though on a much, much smaller scale, in Bassarabia after WWII, for more or less the same reasons.

[Dr. Croccer]

Than why is it that the regions that were hit by the famine coincided exactly with the regions where Stalin had ordered the militia to confiscate all food reserves from the villages just a few months before the first wave of famine.

The Holodomor was entirely premeditated. By the early 1930's the Ukrainians were less than happy to be a part of the Soviet Union and more of them started clamoring for independence. Couple that with a rapidly rising population and you have a big problem on your hands. By forcing a mass starvation he killed two birds with one stone - he put the Ukrainians to heel, and he ensured that they remain obedient by eliminating almost all of the Ukrainian elite.

He did the exact same thing, though on a much, much smaller scale, in Bassarabia after WWII, for more or less the same reasons.

Not sure why he would sent tens of thousands of bushels of grain a month in aid a month after the first reports of shortages then though. Seems rather counterproductive, and Stalin wasn't a subtle man. If he wanted to repress then he would've just denied them food altogether, he did at other times when it he deemed it necessary.

Silly? How naive are you? Mao starved people to death, Stalin did it, its a tool to gain more political power and eliminate their opponents. Hell, since the Norman Invasion 1066 we know tyrants starve people to death!
They do this on purpose.

Yes, yes. I'm sure you think Kim Jong-Il intentionally started the North Korean famines because it would improve his position by forcing him to request American aid somehow as well. Communism was bad not only because of the political repression but because of its incompetence as well. The Communist leaders dogmatically forced through radical reforms that were doomed from the start and either realized that something was going wrong and changed their stance or just forced it through anyway, regardless of the costs.

[Smartbomb]

Your 60 year sleeper cell zionist conspiracy theories aside.

I assume by the same you mean oppressive, corrupt, and belligerent then that's a fair opinion.

But come on, the same? There is no way it would have been the same, they had vastly different political views, different support bases, oh and then there was the whole million people dying in the Great Purge.

It would be like the early bolshevik government in which a protected group of commissars and beauracrats murdered everyone they didn't like and disagreed with. Then they would continue to implement more fail policy and steal grain from the peasant class they were pretending to "liberate." Bronstein would continue his reign of terror, lies, and continue to pioneer more socialist political tactics. He would use NY city as his home base of socialist subversion in america all while laughing it up in his mercedes as the proletariat eats bugs.

[Col. Tartleton]

Fair actually, Trotsky had created the Red Army as a fighting force, and it can be argued that Stalin's purges of the Army where based on the fear of Trotsky's old comrades in the higher ranks (And being nuts). Very unlikely Trotsky would have entered into the pacts with Germany (the military tech sharing of the Weimar era, or the NAP under Hitler) because he most likely wouldn't have needed to. However the rise of NAzism would also have been made less likely, Stalin made a massive miscalculation that a Nazi government would lead to revolution as he saw them as reaction on the march, so ordered the German communists not to form a united front with the opposition against the rise of the Reich.

Onto foreign affairs: Franco would be boned, hard. A USSR that wasn't tearing itself apart in a paranoid fever dream would be in far better shape to aid the Republic against Franco in the Civil war, and more likely to make common cause with the Anarchists, we could then see an ongoing Civil war in Spain at the start of the time span of WW2, or even worse for the Axis a communist Spain that is hostile to them.

However it isn't all roses, above all Trotsky was competent, methodical and sane, this does not in any way make him our friend, the failure of Fascism could very well have been achieved early, replaced with a resurgent Communist party devoted to world revolution, run from Moscow by a brilliant and charismatic man. That is not necessarily a good thing.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

[Raubritter]

Yes, yes. I'm sure you think Kim Jong-Il intentionally started the North Korean famines because it would improve his position by forcing him to request American aid somehow as well.

Request? The US Establishment and the communist United Nations feed this Regime, its a project to test new strategies and old ones to transform a society. They supplied them with the equitment to build nuclear weapons! Its a open air laboratory for the rest of the world. They starv the countryside population out and force them into socialist style total surveillance mega cities.

Asea Brown Boveri: Yes we supplied them with deuterium-depleted water reactors!
Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

[Engie]

A Trotsky dominated Soviet Union would have been far more aggressive in it's foreign policy, he believed in world revolution and would have used the Red Army to force revolutions.

As it happened Stalin came to dominate the Soviet Union and he adhered to the 'socialism in one country' concept, he didn't share Trotsky's idea of world revolution.

In terms of domestic policy I don't think Trotsky would have done anything different than Stalin. Like Dr. Croccer said above Trotsky was just as ruthless as Stalin was.

[Dromikaites]

Quite likely he would have triggered a foreign intervention against USSR in the mid '30s. And probably there would not have been any Five Year Plans, meaning when the foreign intervention would have happened the Soviet Union would have had much less chances to field enough armor and planes.

[il padrino]

Stalin enforced collectivisation he was harsh but there's no evidence that he planned for the Holodomor to happen. In reality, he showed personal interest in resolving it and aid was sent soon after the local authorities reported shortages,

Ehm,I don't know where did you get that info,but one of the main reasons Holodomor was that bad,is because Stalin refused to send ANY help to the peasants during the worst period,and ordered the ruthless confiscation to be continued nonetheless.In fact,all that was part of his "war" against the peasants.Lenin tried the same but the peasant opposition was too strong at the time,and the Soviet state too weak,so the NAP was created(seen as a movement backwards in the eyes of Stalin).When Stalin thought the moment was right,he restarted the battle,and wanted to teach a lesson to them,by starving them,and basically ending the NEP.And he was right,after that terrible famine,never again would Soviets face resistance while sucking the products from the country side.

To show you how much Stalin cared for the peasants,during the post WW2 famine,Krushchev,alarmed by raising cases of cannibalism,wrote to Stalin asking for permission to send help to the worst areas.The response from an annoyed Stalin was "Your stomach is too weak"...


And before you ask me about sources and stuff,I'm having my exam on Soviet History in a few days,so I have read almost a 1000 pages about it,from a book written by one of the best Italian sovietologists,Andrea Graziosi.