What would happen if Trotsky was the leader of Russia instead of Stalin?

Comments ( 4 )

1. cka2nd says

   Trotsky opposed the invasion of Poland. He was a much more consistent revolutionary than Stalin but not a wild-eyed fanatic or madman. He also probably would not have had the power of either Lenin (earned) or Stalin (stolen) given the divisions within the party and the likelihood that he would not only not have been able to purge the party but wouldn’t have been inclined to do so. And without Stalin’s “Lenin Levy,” the CP could grow more rationally.

   Domestically, yes, industrialization would have occurred and, probably, the collectivization of agriculture, although there was considerable opposition to the latter in the Communist Party. In either case, Trotsky’s managerial skills and belief in actual planning – and not lurching from one policy to a completely different one on the drop of a dime – would have made both processes more efficient and far less wasteful of Soviet lives. The political situation would also, hopefully, be improved by lifting the ban on internal CP factions and allowing the organization of political parties committed to the Revolution but not the CP’s monopoly on power.

   On the international front, Trotsky would stand for the political independence of the working class. Once Chiang Kai-shek turned on the Chinese workers and peasants, the CCP would have broken with him and the KMT. Hitler would never have come to power because the socialist and communist wings of the working class wouldn’t have been divided by Stalin’s idiotic idea of “social fascism” and would instead come together, if only temporarily, to keep the mortal threat of Hitler and the Nazis from coming to power. Building on the Chinese example, the Spanish communists support the peasantry’s seizure of the land and the left – minus the bourgeois liberals and with the communists and left anarchists in the lead – win a civil war. By the end of the 30’s, Germany, China and Spain have all gone red and be allies of the USSR; China and Spain are also rapidly industrializing with the help of the Soviets and, especially, Germany.

   If a second world war did not come, some kind of Cold War was still likely, although it probably would have been a lot shorter than 45 years. If World War II did come, I’d nominate China and Poland as the likeliest sparks, but the Soviet Union and its allies would likely be defending themselves. But it’s an open question as to whether the British and French ruling classes could have gotten their workers to go along with a war against a Soviet Union where there has been no famine or purge trials, a Germany that had stopped the Nazis from coming to power, a Spain that had put down a hard-right and arch-Catholic military, and a China that was trying to overcome 100 years of imperialist dismemberment. Hopefully, that arch-imperialist, Churchill, would have remained a relatively minor historical figure.

   Reply

2. Wave2012 says

   Yes, he would be just a perfect leader. Counting his theory of global “permanent revolution”.

   And, please, give us links for 25 mln? Not your textbook, but real archive data.

   Reply

3. ammianus says

   I’m afraid you’re completely wrong.

   Trotsky wanted to export the Bolshevik Revolution to other countries,and back internal Communist revolutions across the world,using the Red Army when and where necessary.

   This was have resulted in the Soviet Union waging wars of aggressive conquest against its neighbours for ideological reasons (as Nazi Germany did later),and would have had the same result – a global allaince against the aggresors to stop them.

   Trotsky as leader of the Soviet Union would have resulted in WW2 a decade earlier,with the enemy being the Soviet Union instead of Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers,and with a similar result – the defeat and occupation of the aggressor state,and probably just as much loss of life.

   Reply

4. Der Kommissar says

   No way. Trotsky was even more of a radical in some ways than Stalin was. He believed in permanent revolution, and in spreading that revolution to other countries. And he and Lenin tried it when they were in power–they backed Bela Kun in Hungary, the Spartacists in Germany, and tried to outright conquer Poland and make it Communist in 1920.

   If Trotsky had succeeded Lenin, his policy would have been to try to destabilize every other country in the world, and then install a radical Marxist regime. He and whatever countries he did manage to destabilize would have started a second World War long before 1939.

   Russia would have been stronger militarily, because Trotsky wouldn’t have done Stalin’s purges, but would have faced an even stronger Allied coalition than Hitler did. All of the Fascist states would have sided with Britain, France, and the USA. Hitler, or someone like him, would have led Germany on the winning side and Germany would have emerged as an extremely powerful nation after the war was won. The Cold War probably would have been between the USA and its allies and Germany and the other Fascist powers of Europe (Italy, Spain, Hungary, and a bunch of client states they would have set up).

   World War II would have been longer and Russia devastated even more than it was, probably also with nuclear weapons, as Trotsky would have fought to the bitter end. Of course, he probably would have taken a bunch of people like Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Zedong down with him, which would have been a good thing for the rest of the world.

   You need to read up on Trotsky. He was a very, very dangerous person. Stalin was a paranoid dictator, but his philosophy was to develop Socialism in only one country. He was willing to extend control over non-Russian territories, but it wasn’t his primary objective. Trotsky was as fanatical a radical Marxist as Osama bin Laden was a fanatical radical Muslim.

   Reply